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

Fuelarts x BitBasel | The Artists & Collectors Polkadot Hub to onboard 2000+ new & engaged users, 300+ projects and 10K+ transactions

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 316.000 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

Polkadot struggles to engage artists, collectors, and brands, limiting NFT 2.0 adoption and ecosystem growth despite robust blockchain infrastructure.

Ecosystem Impact

Low engagement hampers Polkadot’s adoption goals, transaction volume, and leadership in the $1.7 trillion NFT market, affecting stakeholders’ growth potential.

Proposed Action

Fuelarts and BitBasel will deliver a six-month educational program with webinars, workshops, hackathons, and a Demo Day, requesting $316,000 USDT. Implement a revenue-sharing model returning 3% of art sale revenues to the Treasury.

Expected Outcomes

Attract 2,000+ users, generate 10,432 transactions, and 468,000 DOT in revenue short-term; establish a sustainable artist-collector community, reinforcing Polkadot’s NFT leadership long-term.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1506 by Fuelarts and BitBasel measurably contributes to Polkadot’s long-term adoption, resilience, and relevance. The six-month educational program targets artists and collectors, aiming to onboard over 2,000 users and generate 10,432 transactions, enhancing NFT 2.0 adoption. A revenue-sharing model returns 3% of art sale revenues to the Treasury, bolstering financial resilience. By positioning Polkadot in the $1.7 trillion NFT market, it strengthens relevance. Development benefits indirectly through increased engagement, though direct contributions are limited. Success hinges on achieving ambitious KPIs, but the proposers’ experience supports a positive impact.

Justification

The proposal addresses Polkadot’s adoption challenges by educating artists and collectors, requiring new Polkadot wallets to foster integration. Its KPIs, including 2,000+ users and 468,000 DOT in revenue, align with Polkadot’s 2024 growth in transactions and NFT minting. The revenue-sharing model enhances resilience by funding the Treasury, with potential for significant returns given the NFT market’s scale. Relevance is bolstered through academic partnerships and a focus on NFT 2.0, positioning Polkadot as a market leader. Development is indirectly supported via hackathons and project creation, though not a primary focus. Fuelarts and BitBasel’s prior NFT education programs provide credibility, but execution risks remain.

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 proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1506 by Fuelarts and BitBasel delivers sustainable added value to Polkadot beyond its six-month duration. It establishes a scalable model for artist and collector engagement, fostering a self-sustaining NFT 2.0 community. The revenue-sharing model, returning 3% of art sale revenues to the Treasury, ensures ongoing financial support. Open-source contributions and a Creative Tech Report enhance long-term ecosystem knowledge. By positioning Polkadot as an NFT leader, it drives lasting adoption and relevance, though sustained impact depends on community retention.

Justification

The proposal creates a replicable framework for regional NFT hubs, enabling future programs to engage new users, as evidenced by its planned scalability. The revenue-sharing model, integrated via smart contracts, provides a continuous funding stream to the Treasury, strengthening financial sustainability. The Creative Tech Report and open-source outputs offer enduring resources for developers and artists, supporting ecosystem growth. Partnerships with academic institutions bolster credibility and long-term engagement. However, the sustained value relies on maintaining community activity post-program, and the proposal’s indirect focus on technical development limits its scope. Fuelarts and BitBasel’s experience in NFT education supports feasibility, but execution is critical.

Score: 6/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1506 by Fuelarts and BitBasel addresses an existing structural weakness in the Polkadot ecosystem: insufficient engagement from artists, collectors, and brands in the NFT 2.0 space. Through a six-month educational program, it targets this gap by equipping participants with tools to integrate into Polkadot, fostering adoption. The initiative’s focus on onboarding over 2,000 users and generating transactions directly tackles the lack of active participation, strengthening the network’s user base and market presence, though broader structural issues remain unaddressed.

Justification

Polkadot’s robust blockchain infrastructure, evidenced by tripled transactions and record NFT minting in 2024, is underutilized due to limited engagement from key NFT stakeholders. The proposal identifies this weakness and proposes a structured program with webinars, workshops, and a Demo Day to integrate artists and collectors, requiring new Polkadot wallets to ensure ecosystem interaction. Its KPIs, targeting 10,432 transactions and 2,000+ users, aim to mitigate this gap. However, it does not address other structural weaknesses, such as technical scalability or governance inefficiencies, limiting its scope. The proposers’ experience in NFT education supports the program’s potential to effectively address the identified weakness.

Score: 6/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1506 by Fuelarts and BitBasel primarily promotes user retention within the Polkadot ecosystem through its six-month educational program for artists and collectors in the NFT 2.0 space. By onboarding over 2,000 users and requiring new Polkadot wallets, it fosters sustained engagement. However, it does not significantly promote interoperability or parachain development, as its focus is on education and adoption rather than technical integration or parachain-specific advancements, limiting its broader ecosystem impact.

Justification

The proposal’s core mechanism—educating artists and collectors with webinars, workshops, and hackathons—aims to integrate participants into Polkadot, encouraging long-term use through practical NFT creation and trading skills. The requirement for new wallets with 1 DOT ensures initial retention, and the revenue-sharing model incentivizes ongoing activity by tying art sales to the ecosystem. However, interoperability is not addressed, as the program does not emphasize cross-chain interactions or integrations with other blockchains. Parachain development is also minimally impacted, with no direct support for parachain-specific projects, though hackathons could indirectly inspire related innovation. The proposers’ experience in NFT education supports retention efforts, but the lack of focus on interoperability and parachains restricts its scope.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 24/40 | Average: 6.00/10 (60%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal by Fuelarts and BitBasel, requesting $316,000 USDT for a 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program, clearly falls within the scope of the MediumSpender origin for Track 33 in Polkadot’s OpenGov system. The request, equivalent to approximately 86,575 DOT at a $3.65 USD per DOT price, is below the 100,000 DOT limit for MediumSpender. As a treasury spending proposal aimed at ecosystem development, it aligns with the origin’s purpose. Despite 99.3% community opposition, this does not affect its scope compliance.

Justification

The MediumSpender origin permits treasury spending up to 100,000 DOT for initiatives benefiting the Polkadot ecosystem. The proposal’s $316,000 USDT converts to about 86,575 DOT, fitting within this limit based on current market rates. Its focus on education to boost NFT engagement matches the origin’s intent for funding ecosystem projects. Governance parameters, such as a 200 DOT decision deposit, are met, and the proposal’s structure as a single funding request is valid. Community rejection reflects approval challenges, not scope misalignment, confirming its clear fit within MediumSpender.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

The proposal by Fuelarts and BitBasel for a 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program has a predecessor in Referendum #1289, which was rejected by the Polkadot community. No other directly comparable treasury proposals focusing on NFT education were identified. The current proposal, refined based on feedback, faces similar opposition, with 99.3% voting against, suggesting persistent community concerns. While it addresses a relevant gap, the lack of successful comparable proposals and ongoing rejection indicate limited precedent for its acceptance.

Justification

Referendum #1289, also proposed by Fuelarts and BitBasel, aimed to fund a similar NFT-focused educational initiative but was rejected due to concerns over clarity, technical integration, and necessity. The current proposal incorporates community feedback, adding academic partnerships and a revenue-sharing model, yet faces 99.3% opposition, mirroring its predecessor’s outcome. A review of Polkadot treasury proposals reveals funding for NFT-related projects like Unique Network’s NFT XCM solution, approved with 106,700 DOT, but these focus on technical interoperability, not education. The absence of approved NFT education proposals and the rejection of #1289 suggest the current proposal lacks a successful precedent, reducing its contextual grounding despite addressing a known ecosystem gap.

Score: 4/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The proposal by Fuelarts and BitBasel meaningfully engages Polkadot’s governance system by utilizing the MediumSpender origin for a treasury-funded NFT 2.0 educational program, aligning with OpenGov’s purpose of community-driven funding decisions. It follows governance protocols, including a detailed submission and community discussion. However, its similarity to the rejected Referendum #1289 and overwhelming 99.3% opposition suggest it may burden the system with a proposal unlikely to pass, straining community review resources without advancing ecosystem goals.

Justification

The proposal adheres to OpenGov’s MediumSpender origin, requesting 86,575 DOT within the 100,000 DOT limit, and includes a comprehensive plan with KPIs, demonstrating serious engagement with governance processes. Its discussion document and presentation at AAG #216 foster community input, aligning with OpenGov’s participatory ethos. However, its near-identical scope to the rejected #1289 and 99.3% opposition indicate repeated submission of a contentious idea, potentially clogging the governance pipeline. This burdens token holders tasked with reviewing a proposal with low approval prospects, diverting attention from more viable initiatives, though it does not violate governance rules.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 17/30 | Average: 5.67/10 (57%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested $316,000 USDT for the Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal appears proportionate to its potential benefits, given the projected 468,000 DOT ($1.7 million at $3.65 per DOT) in on-chain revenue and onboarding of 312 projects and 2,000 collectors. The cost per project ($1,012) and per transaction ($30.28) aligns with educational initiatives. However, with only 3% ($51,246) returning to the treasury and 99.3% community opposition, concerns about execution and value perception temper its cost-benefit alignment.

Justification

The proposal’s $316,000 USDT, equivalent to 86,575 DOT, supports a 6-month program with academic partnerships, targeting significant ecosystem growth. The expected 10,432 transactions and $1.7 million in revenue suggest a strong return, though the treasury receives only 3% of this. Costs are reasonable when divided across 312 projects and 2,000 collectors, comparable to similar blockchain education initiatives. However, the 99.3% rejection rate indicates community skepticism about feasibility or cost justification, suggesting the benefits, while promising, may not be fully realized without addressing these concerns, impacting perceived proportionality.

Score: 6/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework of $316,000 USDT for the Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal is reasonably aligned with similar Polkadot treasury proposals, given its scope and deliverables. Compared to initiatives like community education programs requesting around 10,400 DOT or NFT infrastructure projects at 106,700 DOT, the 86,575 DOT equivalent appears proportionate. However, the lack of directly comparable NFT education proposals and 99.3% community opposition suggest skepticism about its cost justification, slightly undermining its reasonableness.

Justification

The proposal’s $316,000 USDT, equivalent to 86,575 DOT at $3.65 per DOT, funds a 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program with academic partnerships, targeting 312 projects and 10,432 transactions. Past treasury proposals, such as one for blockchain education requesting 10,400 DOT or Unique Network’s NFT solution at 106,700 DOT, show a range of budgets for ecosystem development. The cost per project ($1,012) is comparable to similar initiatives, but no prior NFT education proposals were approved, limiting direct benchmarks. The 99.3% rejection rate reflects community doubts about cost reasonableness, possibly due to perceived risks or unclear value, tempering its alignment with similar frameworks.

Score: 6/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Polkadot Treasury and network gain specific added value from the $316,000 USDT expenditure through 3% of on-chain revenue (approximately $51,246 from 468,000 DOT), 312 new NFT projects, 10,432 transactions, and engagement of 2,000 collectors. These enhance ecosystem activity, adoption, and sustainability. Academic partnerships establish a scalable educational model, boosting long-term relevance. However, 99.3% community opposition raises doubts about realizing these benefits, potentially limiting the Treasury’s return.

Justification

The proposal’s revenue-sharing model directly benefits the Treasury by returning 3% of the projected 468,000 DOT ($1.7 million at $3.65 per DOT), equating to $51,246, offsetting part of the 86,575 DOT cost. The network gains from 312 new projects and 10,432 transactions, increasing on-chain activity and adoption in the $1.7 trillion NFT market. Engaging 2,000 collectors strengthens community participation. Academic collaborations create a replicable framework, enhancing Polkadot’s resilience and relevance. Yet, the 99.3% rejection suggests community skepticism about execution, which could reduce the actual value delivered to the Treasury and network if unresolved.

Score: 6/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal requesting $316,000 USDT does not explicitly demonstrate consideration of cheaper alternatives for its 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program. While the budget is detailed, no evidence suggests exploration of lower-cost options, such as fully online formats or reduced scope. The program’s scale, including academic partnerships and on-site components, justifies the cost, but the lack of alternative cost scenarios and 99.3% community opposition highlight a missed opportunity to address efficiency concerns.

Justification

The proposal’s budget breakdown, covering webinars, hackathons, and academic collaborations, supports the $316,000 USDT (86,575 DOT) request, aligning with the projected 312 projects and 10,432 transactions. However, no documentation indicates evaluation of cost-saving measures, like virtual-only delivery or smaller cohorts, which could achieve similar outcomes. The rejection of the prior proposal (#1289) suggests cost concerns, yet the current submission retains a similar scope without addressing leaner alternatives. The 99.3% opposition reflects community doubts, possibly about cost efficiency, underscoring the need for evidence of cheaper options to strengthen the proposal’s justification.

Score: 3/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 21/40 | Average: 5.25/10 (53%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal clearly communicates how the $316,000 USDT will be used for a 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program, detailing funds for webinars, hackathons, and academic partnerships. It specifies KPIs, including 312 new projects, 10,432 transactions, and 468,000 DOT revenue, with 3% returning to the treasury. Milestones cover preparation (April-May 2025), execution (June-November 2025), and a Demo Day (December 2025). Metrics focus on adoption education. Despite 99.3% community opposition, the communication is comprehensive.

Justification

The proposal outlines fund allocation for free courses requiring a 1 DOT wallet, ensuring ecosystem engagement, and includes a revenue-sharing model returning 3% of on-chain revenue. KPIs, such as 312 projects and 2,000 collectors, are measurable, supported by a detailed breakdown and linked documents. Milestones provide a clear timeline, and metrics on blockchain adoption enable tracking. The 99.3% opposition suggests some perceive unclear value, but the proposal’s detailed structure, with accessible KPIs and milestones, ensures evidence-based evaluation, fully meeting transparency and traceability requirements.

Score: 10/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal clearly specifies budgets, timelines, and work packages for its $316,000 USDT 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program. The budget details funds for webinars, hackathons, and academic partnerships. The timeline spans preparation (April-May 2025), execution (June-November 2025), and a Demo Day (December 2025). Work packages include educational courses, mentorship, and community events. Despite 99.3% community opposition, the detailed framework ensures transparency and traceability for evidence-based evaluation.

Justification

The proposal provides a comprehensive budget breakdown, outlining expenditures for program delivery, including on-site and online components, with a referenced document for further details. The timeline is well-defined, with clear phases and a final Demo Day, aligning with Polkadot’s growth context. Work packages are articulated through specific activities like webinars, hackathons, and governance workshops, tied to KPIs such as 312 projects and 10,432 transactions. The clarity supports tracking and evaluation, though the 99.3% community rejection suggests some stakeholders question the framework’s feasibility or value, not its specificity, which remains robust.

Score: 10/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal includes clear success criteria for later evaluation, specifying 312 new projects, 10,432 transactions, 468,000 DOT in on-chain revenue, and engagement of 2,000 collectors. These measurable outcomes, tied to the 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program, enable evidence-based tracking. The criteria are verifiable on-chain, ensuring transparency. Despite 99.3% community opposition, which questions feasibility, the success criteria are well-defined, supporting robust evaluation of the program’s impact.

Justification

The proposal outlines precise KPIs as success criteria, including 312 projects, 10,432 transactions, 468,000 DOT revenue, and 2,000 collectors, with an overall 59% impact across 22 KPIs. These align with goals of boosting adoption and activity, and their on-chain nature allows for transparent verification. The timeline, with a Demo Day in December 2025, supports tracking progress. The 99.3% community rejection reflects concerns about achievability, not the clarity of criteria, which remain comprehensive and measurable, fully enabling evidence-based evaluation.

Score: 10/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The Fuelarts and BitBasel proposal for a 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program includes plans for documentation and reporting to ensure transparency and traceability. It outlines a reporting framework tied to KPIs, such as 312 new projects, 10,432 transactions, and 468,000 DOT revenue, with progress tracked through a final Demo Day in December 2025. Regular updates via community channels are implied, though not explicitly detailed. Despite 99.3% community opposition, the planned documentation supports evidence-based evaluation.

Justification

The proposal’s detailed KPIs, including 312 projects and 2,000 collectors, are designed for on-chain verification, indicating a robust reporting plan. The timeline, with phases culminating in a Demo Day, suggests structured documentation of outcomes, likely shared publicly to demonstrate impact. The inclusion of a budget breakdown and KPI documents implies ongoing reporting commitments. However, the proposal does not explicitly outline the frequency or format of updates, slightly limiting clarity. The 99.3% community rejection reflects feasibility concerns, not documentation planning, which remains well-defined for tracking and evaluation purposes.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 39/40 | Average: 9.75/10 (98%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

Fuelarts and BitBasel have made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem through community engagement, notably organizing events like the BitBasel x Polkadot Miami Tech Week and Miami Art Week activations. These efforts promoted Polkadot’s visibility and NFT adoption. However, no direct financial contributions, such as treasury-funded projects or grants, are documented. The rejection of their prior proposal (#1289) and 99.3% opposition to the current one suggest limited community trust in their implementation capacity.

Justification

BitBasel’s events, including a Web3-focused lunch during Miami Tech Week and art-tech activations in 2024, are documented in news articles, demonstrating community-building contributions. Fuelarts, associated through Denis Belkevich, supports these efforts, though its direct Polkadot contributions are less clear. No records of grants or completed projects appear in Polkadot’s treasury or Web3 Foundation data. The rejected Referendum #1289 indicates prior governance engagement but no successful delivery. The 99.3% opposition reflects skepticism about their track record, suggesting their event-based contributions only partially establish credibility for implementing the proposed educational program

Score: 6/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Fuelarts and BitBasel have not successfully implemented verifiable projects within the Polkadot ecosystem, though they have organized community events like the BitBasel x Polkadot Miami Tech Week and Miami Art Week activations. Their prior proposal, Referendum #1289, was rejected, indicating no completed treasury-funded projects. While events demonstrate engagement, no evidence confirms successful project implementation, and 99.3% community opposition to the current proposal questions their capability.

Justification

Searches across Polkadot’s treasury, grants program, and news sources reveal no record of Fuelarts or BitBasel delivering funded projects or grants. Their documented contributions include events promoting Polkadot’s visibility, such as the 2024 Miami Tech Week lunch and art-tech activations, but these are not on-chain projects. The rejected Referendum #1289 shows governance engagement without success. The 99.3% opposition to Referendum #1506 suggests community doubts about their ability to implement the proposed educational program, reinforcing the lack of a proven project track record.

Score: 3/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Fuelarts and BitBasel lack publicly accessible references like code repositories or publications directly supporting their credibility in the Polkadot ecosystem. Community feedback includes their organization of events like the BitBasel x Polkadot Miami Tech Week, but their prior proposal (#1289) was rejected, and the current one faces 99.3% opposition, reflecting skepticism. While events show engagement, the absence of technical contributions or positive feedback limits evidence of their capability to implement the proposed educational program.

Justification

No code repositories or publications from Fuelarts or BitBasel were found in Polkadot’s ecosystem or public platforms like GitHub. Their contributions are limited to community events, such as the 2024 Miami Tech Week and Art Week activations, documented in news articles, indicating some credibility in engagement. However, the rejected Referendum #1289 and 99.3% opposition to #1506, with community concerns about ROI and execution, suggest weak support. The lack of technical or on-chain contributions and negative feedback outweigh event-based evidence, undermining their credibility for implementing the proposal.

Score: 4/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The Fuelarts and BitBasel team demonstrates partial capability to deliver the promised outcomes of the 6-month NFT 2.0 educational program, leveraging their experience in organizing community events like the BitBasel x Polkadot Miami Tech Week. Their academic partnerships and detailed plan suggest potential, but the lack of prior successful Polkadot projects, rejection of Referendum #1289, and 99.3% community opposition raise significant doubts about their ability to achieve the targeted 312 projects, 10,432 transactions, and 468,000 DOT revenue.

Justification

The team’s event organization, including Web3-focused events in 2024, shows skills in community engagement and education, relevant to the proposal’s goals. Collaborations with universities like Nova Southeastern enhance their capacity for program delivery. However, no evidence of completed Polkadot projects or treasury-funded initiatives exists, and the rejected #1289 indicates past failure. The 99.3% opposition reflects community skepticism about execution and ROI, suggesting the team’s track record and current support are insufficient to confidently deliver the ambitious outcomes, despite a structured plan.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 18/40 | Average: 4.50/10 (45%)