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

Polkadot x MotoGP Partnership & Integration Proposal (VOTE NAY)

Track: 11 | Origin: Treasurer | Amount: 5.745.233 DOT

Summary of the proposal

The proposers kindly ask to vote NAY.
In our view, the rationale behind this proposal has not been presented in a transparent manner:

"Dear community,

We would like to inform you that, after careful consideration and in light of the current market conditions,
we have made the decision to withdraw the proposed partnership between Polkadot and MotoGP.

Our intention has always been to build a long-term strategic collaboration that would foster the adoption
of blockchain technology within the world of MotoGP. While we firmly believe in the potential of this vision,
we recognize that the present circumstances are not ideal to move forward with the proposal in a responsible and sustainable manner.

We are truly grateful for the interest shown by the community and for all the feedback received. We hope to be
part of future initiatives within the Polkadot ecosystem once more favorable conditions are in place.

Thank you for your understanding"


In light of the lack of transparency, we are dedicated to bringing greater clarity to the issue:

This report analyzes the reasons why the proposers withdrew their proposal for a partnership between Polkadot and MotoGP, as outlined in the public statement to the community dated April 9, 2025. The announcement cited "current market conditions" and stated that the circumstances were not ideal to proceed in a responsible and sustainable manner.
The analysis is based on publicly available information, including community discussions, official announcements, and relevant news sources.

Community Concerns and Governance

The analysis indicates that the Polkadot community expressed significant concerns regarding the proposal, resulting in an overwhelming “Nay” vote. The proposed amount of approximately 5.75 million DOT, equivalent to around 22.7 million USD, represented 25% of the Polkadot treasury. This was considered unprecedented for a new partner, especially given MotoGP’s questionable blockchain history.
The community criticized the lack of transparency regarding MotoGP’s prior blockchain ventures, such as MotoGP Ignition on Flow and the CryptoDATA incident, without any post-mortem analysis or lessons learned.

The proposal included no measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) and called for three years of advance payments without demonstrators or proof of concept. This raised concerns that such a proposal could set a precedent for opaque, high-cost requests that might undermine the credibility of the OpenGov system.
As an alternative, a pilot phase with a budget of 500,000 to 1 million euros for a proof of concept was proposed, rather than investing 22 million USD into branding without substance.

Permanence DAO highlighted the excessive costs, the absence of a payment schedule, doubts about the target audience, and MotoGP’s history of failed partnerships. The Hungarian Polkadot DAO noted that the proposed DOT allocation was too large and misaligned with the community's marketing efforts.
These concerns were reflected in the final vote, which saw 0% “Aye” and 100% “Nay,” with 13,890 DOT in favor and 52.47 million DOT against, a support threshold of 0.00%, and a total issuance of approximately 1.55 billion DOT.


Uncertainty Around MotoGP Ownership

Another critical factor was the uncertainty surrounding MotoGP’s future ownership, as a sale to Liberty Media was underway. In April 2024, Liberty Media announced plans to acquire 86% of Dorna Sports, the owner of MotoGP, for approximately 4.5 billion USD, with management retaining 14%.
By April 2025, the deal was nearly finalized, with European Union approval expected by July 1, 2025.
This uncertainty may have impacted sponsorship negotiations, as new owners might have different plans or be unwilling to honor existing agreements.


Market Conditions and Further Considerations

The public statement referenced “current market conditions,” likely referring to the general sentiment in the crypto market, particularly the price and volatility of DOT. As of April 19, 2025, DOT was trading at approximately 3.73 USD, a relatively stable value compared to previous periods, though potentially not ideal for a major investment.
Nevertheless, this factor appeared less significant than the community concerns and ownership uncertainties.


Financial Details and the Proposal

The proposal involved a funding request of 2,150,267.55 DOT for 2025 (€8,355,984), 1,686,043.55 DOT for 2026 (€6,552,000), and 1,770,345.74 DOT for 2027 (€6,879,600), totaling roughly 5.6 million DOT.
This was considered too risky, particularly in the absence of a phased approach or performance-based funding model.

■Question 1 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■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?

Score: 0/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

Score: 0/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 0/40 | Average: 0.00/10 (0%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 0/30 | Average: 0.00/10 (0%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Score: 0/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 0/40 | Average: 0.00/10 (0%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Score: 0/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Score: 0/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 0/40 | Average: 0.00/10 (0%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Score: 0/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Score: 0/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 0/40 | Average: 0.00/10 (0%)