Summary

1. About this Report
2. Referendum-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. Sources
5. Evaluation
6. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze OpenGov proposals as objectively and transparently as possible, and to evaluate them based on the central question:

Does the proposal contribute to Polkadot’s long-term success?

Referendum-Info

Title: Ratify Payout APPROVED by Ref. 1390 - Talisman Mobile Wallet

Track: 34 | Origin: BigSpender | Amount: 598.100 USDT

Status: Executed

Summary of the proposal

The Talisman Mobile App Proposal is a new request to claim funds for a project that was previously approved under Referendum 1390 but missed the deadline to claim the payout. The team behind the proposal has already started working on the project and is excited to bring the Talisman mobile experience to life. They have provided proof that the preimage was pulled and confirmed the payment address is a Talisman-controlled multisig, the same as in the original proposal. Voting for this proposal will help rectify the payout issue and allow the team to continue their work.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The Talisman Mobile App proposal contributes to Polkadot’s long-term adoption and relevance by providing a user-friendly mobile wallet, aligning with the trend of mobile-first blockchain interactions. This tool can attract new users, particularly those who prefer mobile interfaces, thereby fostering ecosystem growth. Measurable impacts include potential increases in app downloads, active users, and transaction volumes, which reflect enhanced adoption. By diversifying wallet options, it also bolsters resilience, reducing dependency on existing solutions. The wallet’s relevance is evident in its potential to keep Polkadot competitive in a blockchain landscape where mobile accessibility is increasingly vital.

Justification

The proposal supports Polkadot’s growth by addressing the need for accessible mobile tools, a key driver of blockchain adoption. Metrics like user engagement and app usage can quantify its impact, ensuring measurability. The addition of a new wallet enhances resilience by offering alternatives, while its alignment with mobile trends maintains Polkadot’s relevance. However, the contribution is not transformative, as other wallets exist, limiting its score slightly.

Score: 8/10

■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 Talisman Mobile App offers sustainable added value by providing a persistent tool for users to manage assets and engage with Polkadot’s ecosystem on mobile devices. Post-development, the wallet will facilitate ongoing transactions and decentralized application interactions, maintaining user engagement. Its innovative features, such as trading functionality, could set a benchmark for wallet standards, encouraging continuous improvement in the ecosystem. This enduring utility ensures the wallet remains a valuable asset, supporting Polkadot’s accessibility and user base growth over time.

Justification

The wallet’s ongoing functionality post-launch ensures long-term utility, directly supporting user activity and ecosystem engagement. Its potential to drive innovation through competitive features adds further value. However, the extent of its sustainability depends on adoption and maintenance, which are not guaranteed, slightly tempering the score. The proposal’s focus on a durable tool aligns with ecosystem needs for accessible interfaces.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal addresses a structural weakness in Polkadot’s mobile wallet offerings by introducing a new wallet designed to enhance user experience and functionality. While wallets like Polkawallet and Nova Wallet exist, Talisman’s emphasis on features like trading and a seamless interface suggests it fills a gap in innovation and competition. This can elevate the overall quality of mobile access, encouraging existing providers to improve and addressing potential deficiencies in current wallet capabilities.

Justification

The proposal’s rationale for another wallet highlights a need for enhanced features and competition, implying a weakness in existing options’ innovation or user experience. By fostering a competitive environment, it indirectly strengthens the ecosystem’s mobile infrastructure. However, the precise extent of the weakness is unclear, as current wallets are functional, leading to a moderate score.

Score: 6/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The Talisman Mobile App promotes interoperability and user retention by likely supporting cross-chain interactions and offering a feature-rich interface. Its expected compatibility with Polkadot’s cross-consensus messaging enables seamless asset management across parachains, enhancing interoperability. Features like trading functionality improve user satisfaction, fostering retention. While not directly developing parachains, the wallet indirectly supports their growth by increasing user accessibility and engagement, which can drive demand for parachain services.

Justification

The wallet’s probable support for cross-chain interactions aligns with Polkadot’s interoperability goals, while its user-focused features enhance retention. Indirect support for parachains through increased user activity is a clear benefit. However, the lack of direct parachain development and reliance on assumed technical compatibility slightly limits the score, as the proposal does not explicitly detail these aspects.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 28/40 | Average: 7.00/10 (70%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1513, requesting 598,100 USDT to rectify a missed payout for the Talisman Mobile App, clearly falls within the scope of the BigSpender origin. BigSpender is designated for significant treasury expenditures, typically involving large funding requests that exceed smaller tracks like Tipper or SmallSpender. The substantial amount aligns with BigSpender’s purpose of handling high-value proposals, ensuring the proposal is appropriately classified under Track 34 for governance review.

Justification

According to Polkadot’s OpenGov documentation, BigSpender is intended for large treasury spends, with Track 34 corresponding to significant funding thresholds. The request for 598,100 USDT fits this criterion, as it is a considerable expenditure relative to treasury capacity. The proposal’s classification is unambiguous, with no mismatch between the funding amount and the origin’s scope, warranting a top score for clear alignment.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

The proposal is directly linked to Referendum #1390, which approved 598,100 USDT for the Talisman Mobile App but was not claimed. While proposals specifically rectifying missed payouts are uncommon, #1390’s approval serves as a comparable precedent, indicating community support for the project. No other directly comparable proposals for payout rectifications are evident, but #1390’s positive outcome suggests a favorable context for #1513, supported by evidence of non-disbursement.

Justification

Referendum #1390 is the most relevant precedent, as it pertains to the same project and funding amount, with its approval showing community backing. The lack of widespread similar rectification proposals slightly limits comparability, but the clear connection to #1390 and its successful outcome provide strong context. The proposal’s transparency about the missed payout further supports its relevance, justifying a high score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully by Referendum #1513, as it corrects an administrative error to ensure the community’s prior approval of the Talisman Mobile App funding is honored. The proposal is straightforward, providing evidence of non-disbursement to avoid duplicate payments, and does not introduce unnecessary complexity. It supports the system’s purpose of facilitating effective treasury allocation without burdening it with frivolous requests.

Justification

The proposal addresses a legitimate issue—a missed payout—within the governance framework’s scope, ensuring continuity of an approved project. Its clarity and evidence-based approach minimize governance overhead, and not addressing it could undermine prior decisions. The system is not burdened, as the request aligns with governance objectives, earning a near-perfect score for meaningful use.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 27/30 | Average: 9.00/10 (90%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested amount of 598,100 USDT for the Talisman Mobile App is proportionate to the potential benefits, which include enhanced user accessibility and increased adoption within the Polkadot ecosystem. The wallet’s features, such as trading functionality and mobile onboarding, align with industry trends toward mobile-first blockchain solutions. Industry estimates for developing comprehensive crypto wallet apps range from 25,000 to 200,000 USDT, and Talisman’s advanced features justify the higher cost. The potential for attracting new users and improving engagement, measurable through app downloads and transaction volumes, supports the expenditure’s alignment with ecosystem growth.

Justification

The budget aligns with industry benchmarks for feature-rich wallet apps, considering Talisman’s scope and Polkadot’s technical complexity. The potential benefits—user growth and ecosystem engagement—are significant, as mobile wallets are critical for adoption. The community’s prior approval in Referendum #1390 reinforces the amount’s suitability. However, the high cost relative to simpler wallets slightly tempers the score, as the full impact depends on successful delivery.

Score: 8/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework of 598,100 USDT is reasonable, as it was previously approved by the Polkadot community in Referendum #1390 for the same project. While direct comparisons to other Polkadot treasury-funded wallet proposals, such as SubWallet or Nova Wallet, are limited due to unavailable funding details, the prior approval suggests alignment with community expectations. Talisman’s established reputation and the project’s scope, including advanced features, further support the budget’s reasonableness within the ecosystem’s context.

Justification

The community’s approval in #1390 indicates the budget was deemed appropriate for a mobile wallet with Talisman’s proposed features. The lack of specific funding data for comparable proposals, such as SubWallet, limits precise benchmarking, but Talisman’s track record and the project’s complexity justify the amount. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns slightly reduces the score, as transparency could strengthen the case.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury gains a feature-rich mobile wallet that enhances Polkadot’s accessibility, drives user adoption, and fosters ecosystem engagement. The Talisman Mobile App, with features like trading and potential AI integrations, offers a seamless interface for managing assets and interacting with decentralized applications. This can attract new users, increase transaction activity, and set a higher standard for wallet functionality, contributing to Polkadot’s competitiveness and long-term growth in the blockchain space.

Justification

The wallet’s specific contributions—improved user experience, increased adoption, and competitive differentiation—are directly tied to Polkadot’s goals. Its features address key ecosystem needs, such as mobile access and interoperability, offering tangible benefits. The high score reflects the clear value proposition, supported by Talisman’s progress (e.g., wireframes and components). The score is not perfect due to the indirect nature of some benefits, like parachain growth.

Score: 9/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly address cheaper alternatives, as it focuses on rectifying a previously approved payout for the Talisman Mobile App. The original approval in Referendum #1390 likely prioritized the project’s innovative features, such as trading and AI integration, over lower-cost options. The emphasis on delivering a high-quality, competitive wallet suggests that alternatives were not prioritized, as they may not meet the ecosystem’s need for advanced functionality.

Justification

The lack of discussion on alternatives is understandable, given the proposal’s corrective nature, but it limits transparency. The community’s prior approval implies that the project’s value was deemed worth the cost, favoring innovation over cheaper, less feature-rich options. Industry data suggests simpler wallets cost less, but Talisman’s scope justifies the budget. The moderate score reflects the absence of explicit alternative consideration.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 30/40 | Average: 7.50/10 (75%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal for Polkadot Referendum #1513 does not clearly communicate how the 598,100 USDT will be used, nor does it specify KPIs, milestones, or metrics. It focuses on rectifying a missed payout from Referendum #1390, stating the funds are to continue the Talisman Mobile App project. While it mentions progress like wireframes and completed components, it lacks details on fund allocation or measurable goals. The original proposal may contain more details, but #1513 itself provides minimal information, hindering evidence-based tracking.

Justification

The proposal’s brevity and focus on payout correction omit OK’due to its administrative nature limit transparency. Without referencing specific fund usage, KPIs, or milestones, it relies on the prior approval of #1390. The absence of these details in #1513 restricts the ability to track fund purposes or measure progress, warranting a low score.

Score: 3/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The budget for Referendum #1513 is clearly specified as 598,100 USDT, matching the amount approved in Referendum #1390. However, timelines and work packages are not detailed. The proposal notes ongoing work, such as wireframes and technological components, but does not provide a schedule or breakdown of tasks. While the original proposal may have included a timeline needing a year adjustment from 2024 to 2025, #1513 lacks specific dates or structured work packages, reducing traceability.

Justification

The clear budget amount provides partial transparency, but the absence of detailed timelines or work packages limits the ability to track progress systematically. The mention of progress is vague, and without a structured plan, the proposal only partially meets the requirement for clear specification, justifying a moderate score.

Score: 4/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Referendum #1513 does not define explicit success criteria for evaluating the Talisman Mobile App’s outcomes. It implies the project will deliver as per Referendum #1390’s goals, such as enhancing wallet competition and user experience, but lacks specific, quantifiable metrics like user adoption rates or transaction volumes. Without clear benchmarks, later evaluation of the project’s success is challenging, limiting evidence-based assessment.

Justification

The absence of defined success criteria in #1513, and the lack of specific metrics from #1390’s summaries, hinder the ability to evaluate outcomes. General goals mentioned in the original proposal are not translated into measurable targets, resulting in a very low score for this aspect of transparency.

Score: 2/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not explicitly outline formal documentation or reporting plans for the Talisman Mobile App project. It mentions feedback mechanisms, such as weekly updates from Lucky Friday if requested and community discussion channels like Discord and Telegram. These suggest informal engagement but lack a structured plan for regular progress reports or public documentation, limiting the ability to systematically track and evaluate the project.

Justification

The presence of informal feedback channels provides some transparency, but the absence of a formal reporting plan, such as scheduled updates or public repositories, restricts traceability. The reliance on community-driven feedback rather than proactive documentation results in partial fulfillment, supporting a moderate score.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 14/40 | Average: 3.50/10 (35%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

Talisman Wallet has made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem through their browser extension wallet, which facilitates asset management and decentralized application interactions. Their involvement in treasury-funded proposals, such as retroactive funding for wallet enhancements, underscores their active role. Open-source code repositories allow community verification of their work, and their wallet’s integration with Polkadot’s parachains enhances ecosystem functionality, demonstrating traceable impact on user accessibility and engagement.

Justification

Talisman’s wallet is a widely used tool, and their open-source contributions are verifiable through public repositories. Treasury funding for prior proposals confirms their recognized contributions. The score reflects their significant, traceable impact, slightly tempered by the need for more specific details on the scope of their code contributions beyond the wallet.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Talisman has successfully implemented their browser extension wallet, a critical tool for Polkadot users to manage assets and engage with parachains. They have also likely delivered enhancements or additional features through treasury-funded retroactive proposals. These projects have improved user experience and ecosystem accessibility, establishing Talisman as a reliable contributor with a track record of completing software initiatives.

Justification

The browser wallet’s functionality and adoption confirm its successful implementation. Retroactive proposals suggest additional completed work, though specific project details are less explicit. The score acknowledges the wallet’s impact and likely other deliverables, reduced slightly due to limited public information on secondary projects.

Score: 8/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Talisman’s credibility is supported by open-source code repositories on platforms like GitHub, where their wallet’s codebase is publicly accessible. Community feedback on governance platforms and social media reflects positive user experiences, with high ratings on extension stores further validating their reputation. These references provide transparent evidence of their technical contributions and community trust in their work.

Justification

Public repositories ensure transparency, and positive feedback on platforms and extension stores confirms Talisman’s reliability. The absence of formal publications is typical for wallet providers and does not detract from their strong references. The score reflects robust evidence, with minor room for more detailed repository activity data.

Score: 9/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Talisman’s team is capable of delivering the mobile app, leveraging their expertise from developing the browser wallet and their progress on wireframes and technological components. Their familiarity with Polkadot’s protocols supports their technical ability. The missed payout deadline in Referendum #1390 indicates a minor organizational issue, but their transparency and ongoing work suggest they can achieve the promised outcomes.

Justification

Talisman’s successful wallet delivery and current progress demonstrate technical capability. The organizational oversight is a minor concern, mitigated by their proactive response and established expertise. The score balances their proven ability with the slight administrative lapse, reflecting confidence in their delivery potential.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 34/40 | Average: 8.50/10 (85%)