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: Polkadot x MotoGP Partnership & Integration Proposal (VOTE NAY)

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

Status: Rejected

Summary of the proposal

Polkadot and MotoGP have decided to withdraw their proposed partnership due to current market conditions. The partnership aimed to integrate blockchain technology into MotoGP and make Polkadot an official partner. The main objectives were to establish a long-term alliance, promote Polkadot, implement blockchain solutions like NFTs and DOT payments, and increase Polkadot's presence in the mass market. The partnership would have provided brand exposure, activations with Marc Márquez, and the creation of an NFT marketplace powered by Polkadot. The investment requested was in DOT cryptocurrency for the years 2025, 2026, and 2027. The expected impact included access to a global audience and active participation of the Polkadot community in selecting sponsored events.

ANALYSIS

■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%)