Summary

1. About this Report
2. Proposal-Info
3. ANALYSIS
1. ■Impact on the Ecosystem
2. ■Governance Compliance
3. ■Cost-Benefit Ratio
4. ■Transparency and Traceability
5. ■Track Record and Credibility
4. Evaluation
5. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals as objectively, effectively, and transparently as possible. The goal is to create clear and structured decision-making foundations for our own voting—and to make these visible to the community.

Proposal-Info

SportStake Development & EU Marketing Funding Proposal

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 272.500 USDC

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The Polkadot ecosystem struggles to attract non-crypto-native users, limiting its adoption among diverse demographics like sports fans who could engage through accessible staking platforms.

Ecosystem Impact

Low engagement from non-technical communities restricts Polkadot’s user growth, staking volume, and governance participation, hindering its goal of becoming a widely adopted Web3 protocol.

Proposed Action

SportStake requests 272,500 USDC to expand partnerships with European sports clubs, enhance its mobile staking app, and execute marketing campaigns, led by the SportStake team, to drive user adoption.

Expected Outcomes

Short-term: Increased app users and staked DOT volume. Long-term: Growth in Polkadot’s user base, higher transaction volume, and stronger ecosystem engagement through sports community integration.

■Question 1 of 19

Does the proposal measurably contribute to the long-term development, adoption, resilience, or relevance of Polkadot?

The SportStake proposal contributes to Polkadot’s long-term adoption and relevance by targeting sports fans to stake DOT, potentially expanding the user base and showcasing real-world applications. Existing partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong have grown the staking pool to over 50,000 DOT, indicating potential for further growth. European expansion and app enhancements could drive significant user engagement. However, the high budget of 272,500 USDC and unclear technical contributions raise concerns about cost-effectiveness and impact on development or resilience, limiting its overall strategic impact.

Justification

The proposal leverages sports fandom to attract non-crypto users, aligning with Polkadot’s goal of broadening adoption. With over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked, the pilot demonstrates traction, and scaling to more European clubs could add thousands of users, increasing staked volume and governance participation. This enhances Polkadot’s relevance through practical use cases like funding sports initiatives. However, the budget’s justification is vague, and community feedback highlights concerns about overlap with existing wallets and limited developer attraction. Contributions to technical development or network resilience are minimal, as the focus is on marketing and app improvement rather than core infrastructure.

Score: 7/10

■Question 2 of 19

What sustainable added value does the proposal bring to the Polkadot ecosystem in the long term, beyond the immediate project duration?

The SportStake proposal offers sustainable added value to Polkadot by fostering long-term user adoption through sports fan engagement, potentially creating a self-sustaining user base that continues staking DOT beyond the project’s duration. Partnerships with sports clubs could establish Polkadot as a recognized platform for fan-driven initiatives, enhancing its relevance. The app’s user-friendly design may retain non-crypto users, increasing staked volume. However, the lack of clarity on post-funding sustainability and technical contributions limits its broader ecosystem impact.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on sports fans introduces a new demographic to Polkadot, with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked in the pilot phase, demonstrating potential for organic growth. Expanding partnerships across Europe could embed Polkadot in sports communities, encouraging sustained staking and governance participation as fans remain engaged with clubs. This could lead to a lasting increase in network activity and visibility. However, the proposal does not detail how the app will remain viable after funding ends, and community concerns about budget efficiency and overlap with existing wallets suggest limited technical or infrastructural contributions. The sustainable value hinges on user retention and partnership longevity, which are promising but not guaranteed.

Score: 6/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The SportStake proposal addresses a structural weakness in Polkadot’s ecosystem by targeting the limited adoption among non-crypto-native users, particularly sports fans, to expand the user base. By leveraging a mobile wallet app and sports club partnerships, it tackles the challenge of engaging diverse demographics. However, it does not address technical or governance-related weaknesses, and the high budget raises concerns about efficiency, limiting its impact on broader structural issues.

Justification

Polkadot’s ecosystem struggles to attract users beyond the crypto community, a structural weakness that restricts its growth and network activity. The proposal directly targets this by introducing sports fans to staking through a user-friendly app, with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked in the pilot phase, showing early success. Expanding European partnerships could further diversify the user base, strengthening adoption. However, it overlooks other weaknesses, such as technical infrastructure or governance participation, and community feedback questions the necessity of a new wallet versus enhancing existing ones. The budget’s alignment with outcomes is unclear, reducing its effectiveness in addressing systemic issues comprehensively.

Score: 5/10

■Question 4 of 19

Does the proposal promote interoperability, user retention, or parachain development?

The SportStake proposal promotes user retention by offering a user-friendly mobile wallet app that engages sports fans in staking DOT, encouraging sustained interaction through club support. Its pilot phase, with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked, suggests potential for retention. However, it does not address interoperability or parachain development, focusing solely on user acquisition and app enhancement, which limits its broader ecosystem impact.

Justification

The proposal targets sports fans, a non-crypto demographic, to stake DOT via an intuitive app, fostering user retention by tying staking rewards to fan loyalty for sports clubs. The pilot’s success, with 1,000+ users and 50,000 DOT staked, indicates that fans may continue engaging due to the app’s simplicity and club benefits. Community feedback supports its user engagement potential but notes no contribution to interoperability, as the app operates independently without integrating Polkadot’s cross-chain features. Similarly, there is no mention of parachain development or ecosystem tools, and the focus on a standalone wallet raises questions about redundancy versus existing solutions, constraining its strategic scope.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 22/40 | Average: 5.50/10 (55%)

■Question 5 of 19

Does the proposal clearly fall within the scope of the chosen origin (Treasury, Tipper, Spender)?

The SportStake proposal clearly falls within the scope of the Medium Spender origin, requesting 272,500 USDC, approximately 75,694 DOT, for expanding partnerships and enhancing its mobile wallet app. This aligns with the Medium Spender track’s purpose of funding significant ecosystem projects. The proposal’s focus on treasury funding for marketing and development ensures compliance with Polkadot’s OpenGov treasury spending framework, with no indication of misalignment with the chosen origin.

Justification

Polkadot’s OpenGov system categorizes treasury proposals into tracks like Small Tipper, Big Tipper, Small Spender, Medium Spender, and Big Spender, each with specific DOT limits. The Medium Spender track, with a limit of 100,000 DOT, fits the proposal’s request of 272,500 USDC, equivalent to about 75,694 DOT at $3.60 per DOT. The proposal’s activities—scaling partnerships with sports clubs, improving the app, and boosting adoption—are consistent with treasury spending for ecosystem growth, as seen in prior funded projects like marketing campaigns. Community feedback on Subsquare acknowledges the treasury funding request, with no objections to the origin’s appropriateness, though budget size is debated. The proposal avoids actions requiring other origins, such as runtime changes, confirming its fit within the Medium Spender scope.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

Are there previous proposals with comparable content, and if so, what were their outcomes?

The SportStake proposal, focusing on a mobile wallet app for sports fans to stake DOT and support clubs, aligns with previous Polkadot treasury proposals like the Conor Daly sponsorship and Talisman wallet funding. The Conor Daly proposal, securing 290,000 DOT, was approved and enhanced brand visibility. Talisman’s proposals, funded for wallet development, supported user growth. However, the Table Soccer Tournament proposal, similar in sports marketing, was not funded due to insufficient support. SportStake’s contextualization is partially fulfilled due to mixed outcomes and budget concerns.

Justification

SportStake’s emphasis on user onboarding through sports and wallet development mirrors past proposals. The Conor Daly sponsorship, approved in 2024, used sports for marketing, achieving significant visibility with 95.8% community support. Talisman’s funded proposals, like Referendum #310, advanced wallet infrastructure, growing to over 40,000 users, relevant to SportStake’s app focus. Conversely, the Table Soccer Tournament proposal, targeting sports-based user engagement, failed to secure funding, reflecting community skepticism similar to SportStake’s budget and wallet redundancy concerns. These precedents place SportStake within established governance patterns, but community debates and the unfunded Table Soccer case suggest only partial alignment. The Medium Spender origin fits its 75,694 DOT request.

Score: 6/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The SportStake proposal meaningfully engages Polkadot’s governance system by leveraging the Medium Spender origin to request 272,500 USDC for expanding user adoption through sports partnerships and app enhancements. It aligns with OpenGov’s purpose of funding ecosystem growth, fostering community debate on budget and strategy. However, concerns about wallet redundancy and budget clarity slightly burden the system, as they require additional scrutiny, partially fulfilling meaningful governance use.

Justification

Polkadot’s OpenGov system encourages community-driven proposals to allocate treasury funds, with the Medium Spender track, capped at 100,000 DOT, suited for SportStake’s 75,694 DOT equivalent request. The proposal’s focus on user onboarding via sports aligns with governance goals, sparking active Subsquare discussions on its merits and drawbacks, such as potential overlap with existing wallets like Talisman. This engagement strengthens governance by involving stakeholders in decision-making. However, the lack of detailed budget justification and community concerns about necessity strain the system, demanding extra effort to evaluate. While not frivolous, these issues suggest the proposal could be more streamlined to avoid burdening governance processes, warranting a balanced assessment of its contextual fit.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 21/30 | Average: 7.00/10 (70%)

■Question 8 of 19

Is the requested amount proportionate to the potential or demonstrated benefit?

The SportStake proposal’s requested 272,500 USDC appears partially proportionate to its potential benefit, given its pilot’s success with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked. Industry data suggests this could acquire around 3,200 users, potentially adding 160,000 DOT worth $576,000, exceeding costs. However, strong community opposition, with 99.8% Nay votes, highlights concerns over budget clarity and wallet redundancy, questioning the amount’s alignment with demonstrated impact.

Justification

The proposal seeks 75,694 DOT equivalent to scale a staking app for sports fans. The pilot demonstrates value, onboarding 1,000+ users at 50 DOT each. Using a $85 DeFi user acquisition cost, 272,500 USDC could onboard 3,200 users, staking 160,000 DOT, a significant ecosystem boost. Past proposals like Talisman’s wallet funding achieved high user growth, supporting potential. Yet, community feedback on Subsquare, with near-unanimous rejection, cites excessive costs and overlap with existing wallets, suggesting inadequate justification. Without a detailed budget, proportionality remains uncertain, balancing demonstrated success against governance concerns.

Score: 5/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The SportStake proposal’s budget of 272,500 USDC, approximately 75,694 DOT, appears partially reasonable compared to similar Polkadot treasury proposals like the Conor Daly sponsorship and Talisman wallet funding. These funded initiatives, with budgets of 290,000 DOT and lower amounts respectively, delivered significant user growth and visibility. However, SportStake’s lack of detailed budget breakdown and community concerns about wallet redundancy suggest it is less justified, limiting its alignment with comparable frameworks.

Justification

SportStake’s budget targets user acquisition and app enhancements, akin to the Conor Daly sponsorship, which spent 290,000 DOT for sports marketing, achieving high visibility, and Talisman’s proposals, funded for wallet development, yielding over 40,000 users. Industry benchmarks suggest a $85 DeFi user acquisition cost, implying SportStake could onboard 3,200 users, potentially staking 160,000 DOT, comparable to Talisman’s impact. However, Subsquare feedback highlights strong opposition (99.8% Nay votes), citing excessive costs and overlap with existing wallets, unlike the clearer justifications in approved proposals. The absence of itemized tasks or milestones, as recommended by Polkadot’s treasury guidelines, weakens its framework compared to successful precedents.

Score: 5/10

■Question 10 of 19

What specific added value does the Treasury or network gain in return for this expenditure?

The SportStake proposal, with a 272,500 USDC expenditure, offers the Polkadot Treasury and network increased user adoption through sports fan engagement, potentially adding thousands of new users staking 160,000 DOT, worth approximately 576,000 USD. It enhances network visibility and staking volume, strengthening security and governance participation. However, the lack of budget clarity and community concerns about wallet redundancy limit the perceived value, making the return partially fulfilled.

Justification

The proposal leverages a pilot with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked, demonstrating the ability to attract non-crypto users. Industry data suggests a 85 USD user acquisition cost, implying 3,200 new users, each staking 50 DOT, contributing 160,000 DOT to the network, valued at 576,000 USD at 3.60 USD per DOT. This boosts staking, network security, and potential governance activity, aligning with treasury goals. Partnerships with sports clubs enhance Polkadot’s brand visibility. However, Subsquare’s 99.8% Nay votes reflect community skepticism about the budget and overlap with existing wallets, suggesting unclear value. Without detailed deliverables, the added value is promising but not fully substantiated compared to past funded proposals like Talisman.

Score: 5/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The SportStake proposal, requesting 272,500 USDC, does not explicitly demonstrate that cheaper alternatives were considered for achieving its goals of expanding sports partnerships and enhancing the app. Community feedback suggests collaborating with existing wallets like Talisman or redirecting funds to marketing bounties, indicating potential cost-saving options. However, without evidence of exploring these alternatives in the proposal, the consideration of efficiency is limited, partially fulfilling resource optimization.

Justification

SportStake’s pilot success, with over 1,000 users and 50,000 DOT staked, supports its expansion plan, but the proposal lacks discussion of cost-effective alternatives, such as leveraging existing wallet infrastructure or smaller-scale marketing. Subsquare discussions highlight community suggestions for partnering with wallets like Talisman or Nova, which could reduce development costs, or using a marketing bounty for targeted outreach, potentially lowering the budget. These alternatives align with Polkadot’s treasury guidelines emphasizing efficiency. The absence of a budget breakdown or mention of evaluating such options weakens the proposal’s justification. While the requested amount aligns with industry user acquisition costs, the strong community opposition (99.8% Nay votes) reflects perceived inefficiency, suggesting cheaper approaches were not adequately considered.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 19/40 | Average: 4.75/10 (48%)

■Question 12 of 19

Is it clearly communicated how and for what purposes funds will be used—including KPIs, milestones, metrics?

The SportStake proposal for 272,500 USDC lacks clear communication on how funds will be used, with no detailed budget breakdown or specific purposes outlined beyond general goals of expanding partnerships and enhancing the app. It also omits key performance indicators, milestones, and metrics, hindering evidence-based tracking. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, highlights this transparency gap, suggesting a need for milestone-based plans, resulting in very weak fulfillment of traceability requirements.

Justification

The proposal vaguely states intentions to scale European partnerships and improve the app but provides no specifics on fund allocation, such as costs for marketing or development. Subsquare discussions and Polkassembly comments reveal no KPIs, like user acquisition targets, or milestones, such as timelines for partnerships. Metrics for success, like staking volume growth, are absent, contrasting with Polkadot’s treasury expectations for detailed plans, as seen in Talisman’s funded proposals. The community’s strong rejection and calls for a marketing bounty or wallet collaboration underscore the lack of clarity, making evaluation difficult. This opacity fails to meet OpenGov’s transparency standards, significantly undermining accountability.

Score: 2/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The SportStake proposal, requesting 272,500 USDC, does not clearly specify budgets, timelines, or work packages. It broadly outlines goals of expanding sports club partnerships and enhancing the app but lacks a detailed budget breakdown, specific timelines, or defined work packages. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, emphasizes this lack of clarity, suggesting milestone-based plans were needed, resulting in very weak fulfillment of transparency and traceability requirements.

Justification

The proposal mentions using funds to scale European partnerships and improve the app but provides no breakdown of costs, such as allocations for marketing, development, or partnerships. No timelines are specified, such as when partnerships will be secured or app enhancements completed. Work packages, detailing tasks like app feature development or marketing campaigns, are absent. Subsquare discussions highlight community frustration, with suggestions for a structured, milestone-based approach to improve tracking, aligning with Polkadot’s treasury guidelines for clear deliverables, as seen in Talisman’s funded proposals. The strong community rejection underscores the failure to provide specifics, hindering evidence-based evaluation and accountability, significantly below OpenGov’s transparency standards.

Score: 2/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The SportStake proposal for 272,500 USDC lacks clearly defined success criteria for later evaluation. While it aims to expand partnerships and enhance the app, it does not provide specific, measurable outcomes like user acquisition targets, staking volume increases, or partnership numbers. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, criticizes this absence, suggesting milestone-based metrics, indicating very weak fulfillment of transparency for evidence-based evaluation.

Justification

Success criteria, such as achieving a set number of new users, increasing staked DOT by a specific amount, or securing a defined number of sports club partnerships, are essential for evaluating the proposal’s impact. However, the proposal, as seen in Subsquare and Polkassembly discussions, only vaguely mentions goals without quantifiable targets or timelines. This contrasts with Polkadot’s treasury expectations, exemplified by Talisman’s proposals, which included user growth metrics. The community’s strong rejection and calls for structured plans highlight the lack of evaluable criteria, undermining the ability to track progress or assess value, falling significantly short of OpenGov’s standards for transparency and traceability.

Score: 2/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The SportStake proposal for 272,500 USDC does not indicate any planned documentation or reporting mechanisms to track the use of funds or project progress. While it outlines goals like expanding partnerships and enhancing the app, it lacks commitments to provide regular updates, reports, or evidence of outcomes. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, criticizes this opacity, suggesting milestone-based reporting, resulting in very weak fulfillment of transparency requirements.

Justification

Effective treasury proposals in Polkadot’s OpenGov system, such as Talisman’s wallet funding, typically include plans for periodic reporting or public documentation to ensure accountability. However, the SportStake proposal, as reviewed on Subsquare and Polkassembly, makes no mention of how progress will be documented or reported to the community, such as through status updates, financial reports, or outcome summaries. The absence of such plans hinders evidence-based tracking, a critical aspect of transparency. Community discussions highlight this gap, with suggestions for structured, milestone-based reporting to improve oversight, reinforcing the proposal’s failure to meet traceability standards. The strong community rejection underscores the lack of planned documentation, significantly limiting accountability.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 8/40 | Average: 2.00/10 (20%)

■Question 16 of 19

Have the proposers or involved organizations made verifiable, traceable contributions to the ecosystem?

SportStake has made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem through a nomination pool with over 50,000 DOT staked and a mobile app with over 1,000 users, facilitating user onboarding and staking. These efforts support network security and adoption. However, claimed partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong lack external verification, and no technical contributions, like open-source code, are evident, limiting their track record’s depth.

Justification

SportStake operates a nomination pool, verifiable on blockchain explorers, bonding 53,369 DOT with 40 members, contributing to Polkadot’s staking ecosystem. Their app, targeting sports fans, claims over 1,000 users, aligning with user acquisition goals, though user numbers are unverified beyond pool activity. The absence of confirmed partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong, despite searches, raises credibility concerns. No prior treasury proposals or GitHub contributions were found, unlike established teams like Talisman. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, focuses on budget but not past contributions. SportStake’s “Reasonable” identity judgment and 750 DOT locked for the proposal add some credibility, but their limited technical impact results in partial fulfillment.

Score: 6/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

SportStake has successfully implemented a mobile wallet app and a nomination pool for Polkadot, with over 1,000 users and 53,369 DOT staked, fostering user onboarding and network security. Partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong are claimed but lack external verification. No other completed projects are documented, suggesting a limited but functional track record, partially fulfilling credibility for implementing the proposal.

Justification

SportStake’s mobile app, targeting sports fans, facilitates DOT staking, with over 1,000 users reported, though not independently verified beyond the nomination pool’s 40 members. The pool, ID 251, verifiably bonds 53,369 DOT, contributing to Polkadot’s staking ecosystem, as confirmed on blockchain explorers. These projects demonstrate capability in user engagement and staking operations. However, claimed partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong could not be confirmed through external sources, reducing traceability. No prior treasury-funded projects or additional completed initiatives were found, and the absence of open-source contributions limits technical impact. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, focuses on budget concerns but not past projects, suggesting moderate credibility for implementation.

Score: 6/10

■Question 18 of 19

Are there publicly accessible references (e.g., code repositories, publications) or community feedback supporting the proposers’ credibility?

SportStake’s credibility is partially supported by their operation of a nomination pool with 53,369 DOT staked, verifiable on blockchain explorers, and a mobile app with over 1,000 users. However, no publicly accessible code repositories, publications, or technical contributions are found, and claimed partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong lack external references. Community feedback, with 99.8% Nay votes, questions budget but not contributions, indicating limited support for credibility.

Justification

SportStake’s nomination pool, ID 251, is a verifiable contribution, bonding 53,369 DOT, as confirmed on blockchain explorers, demonstrating ecosystem engagement. Their app, claiming over 1,000 users, facilitates staking, though user numbers are not independently verified. No GitHub repositories or publications were identified, with proposer info listing “Github: N/A,” unlike Polkadot’s open-source projects like the Polkadot SDK. Partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong could not be confirmed via external sources, reducing traceability. Subsquare’s community feedback focuses on budget concerns, not past contributions, but the strong Nay vote suggests skepticism. The “Reasonable” identity judgment and 750 DOT locked for the proposal add some credibility, but the lack of public references limits fulfillment.

Score: 5/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

SportStake demonstrates some capability to deliver the promised outcomes, having developed a mobile wallet app with over 1,000 users and a nomination pool bonding 53,369 DOT. These achievements suggest competence in user onboarding and staking operations. However, unverified partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong, lack of technical contributions, and community skepticism, with 99.8% Nay votes, raise doubts about their ability to scale effectively, partially fulfilling credibility.

Justification

SportStake’s track record includes a functional app and a nomination pool, verifiable on blockchain explorers, indicating technical and operational capability. The app’s 1,000+ users and 50,000+ DOT staked show success in engaging non-crypto users, relevant to the proposal’s goals of expanding partnerships and enhancing the app. However, the inability to confirm partnerships with NAC Breda and SV Kampong undermines trust in their ability to secure new ones. No open-source contributions or prior treasury projects were found, unlike teams like Talisman. Community feedback on Subsquare questions budget and wallet redundancy, not directly capability, but the strong rejection suggests concerns about execution. The “Reasonable” identity judgment provides some assurance, but gaps limit confidence in delivering promised outcomes.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 22/40 | Average: 5.50/10 (55%)