ghost in the dotted land

📕We are pleased to announce our next Decentralised Future grantee @0xZeeve Read more about what they are doing here: medium.com/web3foundation…

We’ve noticed some concern about the number of NAY votes coming from JAM DAO members in OpenGov. It’s a valid observation—and worth talking about. Speaking for myself—not necessarily all DAO members—I see this not as gatekeeping, but as a call for higher standards and dialog. As @gavofyork said (and I agree), @Polkadot thrives when it supports missionaries, not mercenaries. Builders who are here for the long run—not just chain-hopping for the next grant. Funding is essential, of course. But so is clarity of purpose and the ability to communicate it. If a proposal can’t convince its closest peers, it’s hard to imagine it gaining traction in the broader market. I’m always open to honest dialogue and improving proposals. A NAY vote is not a closed door—it’s often an invitation to refine and come back stronger. Let’s keep building—together.

📢 Quick update for the community: Here’s a summary of PolkaWorld’s activities on @Polkadot OpenGov this week! This week, PolkaWorld voted on 5 proposals and continued tracking 3 previously voted proposals. Here’s the progress so far: ✅ AYE #1537 Sharing Polkadot with regulators in Florida [500 DOT] ❌ NAY #1530 Reward for the Amforc team’s Spammening campaign [45,000 USDT] #1531 Polkadot Ecological Research Institute [209,520 USDT] #1532 Suprime, a decentralized on-chain accelerator [210,000 DOT] #1533 Faze x Vitality esports sponsorship and user acquisition [1.51M DOT] 📎 Ongoing follow-up proposals this week: #1506 Fuelarts x BitBasel NFT Education Program: Suggested clarifying event positioning and avoiding hidden costs. #1518 Integritee’s privacy sidechain for Asset Hub: Based on current transaction volume and fees, it would take 17 years to repay the Treasury loan; even a 2-year repayment would require explosive growth, yet the proposal doesn’t mention any growth plan. #1523 Humanoid Robots: Further questions raised regarding unclear budget and OKRs. We’d like to take this opportunity to share some of our reflections and hope to spark a discussion with everyone. 1. Currently, OpenGov lacks a clear and broad definition of what types of projects should be eligible for funding.For instance, while it’s clear that public goods projects can be funded, it’s harder to categorize cases like Integritee. If the ecosystem currently has no demand for certain types of public goods, should they still be funded? Should there be a prioritization framework? 2. In our view, the Polkadot Treasury acts as a grant provider, not an investor.However, we often encounter proposals where the teams are actually seeking investment.Should the Treasury be funding these? How do we better balance this? Finally, a few messages for proposers: 1. Regardless of the funding amount, PolkaWorld supports proposals guided by “clear budgets,” “measurable outcomes,” and “real value to the ecosystem.” This is one of the most common issues we’ve observed so far: people often simply state that they need $100,000 for business development, but they don’t clearly specify the form it will take — for example, private networking events? Attendance at major conferences? As a result, it’s difficult to assess whether using $100,000 for business development is reasonable. 2. We evaluate proposals based on the priority needs of the ecosystem and encourage proposers to think about how they can contribute in ways that are most beneficial to Polkadot today. For example, while we believe Fuelarts x BitBasel have valuable resources, using Treasury funds to create an NFT course may not be the best approach. 3. A NAY vote is not a full rejection nor a closed door. It’s intended to help proposers refine their ideas into clearer, more impactful contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem. Thank you all for your ongoing support and understanding! 🌟

What would you build if it were 90% cheaper to start? github.com/polkadot-fello…