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: IBP Bounty Top-Up

Track: 11 | Origin: Treasurer | Amount: 1.027.732 DOT

Status: Executed

Summary of the proposal

The Infrastructure Builders Program (IBP) is a group of independent companies that help the Polkadot network and its parachains with important services. They were started in 2022 and are spread all over the world, making them strong and reliable. They need more money to keep helping the network.

The money they ask for is to add to the IBP bounty, which is managed by five people who work with Polkadot. The bounty pays them for their work only after they have done it. The amount they want is for the most they could possibly do, but last year they only spent $2,490,996 for 552 Relay and System-chain and 154 Parachain RPC nodes.

They get paid for the RPC services they provide every month based on how much they did. You can read the full proposal by clicking [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aK7XtMmpF5FVlt9FGP1puVPHGRktbFQ8M9o6Dh3u9jw).

Some people in the network have given feedback, and IBP services won't be given to those who have clearly cheated the treasury.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal measurably contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development, adoption, resilience, and relevance by sustaining critical infrastructure services through the Infrastructure Builders Program. It ensures reliable RPC endpoints and IT support, handling over 14.9 billion requests in 30 days, which supports ecosystem growth and user engagement. By using member-owned hardware, it reduces reliance on centralized providers, enhancing resilience against disruptions. Performance metrics, such as 19ms response times, bolster relevance by improving user experience. Cost-saving measures, like reduced engineering rates, promote financial sustainability, though funding continuity depends on market conditions.

Justification

The proposal provides concrete metrics, such as 14.9 billion requests and low latency, demonstrating adoption and relevance. Decentralized infrastructure addresses resilience, as evidenced by mitigating risks like the Hetzner incident. Support for applications like Polkadot.js and Talisman Wallet drives development. However, reliance on DOT price recovery for expansion slightly limits certainty.

Score: 9/10

■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 delivers sustainable added value by maintaining decentralized infrastructure and fostering ongoing ecosystem support. A building fund supports future tools like decentralized monitoring, ensuring adaptability. Environmental commitments, such as renewable energy use, align with long-term ecological goals. Cost efficiencies, including bulk discounts for network traffic, enhance financial viability. Governance via a curator-managed multisig ensures transparency and community alignment, extending benefits beyond the funding period, though the building fund’s impact hinges on execution.

Justification

The building fund and environmental measures provide clear long-term benefits, while cost efficiencies and governance strengthen sustainability. The proposal’s focus on continuous service provision supports ongoing ecosystem needs. Execution risks for the building fund prevent a perfect score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal directly addresses structural weaknesses by reducing Polkadot’s dependency on centralized infrastructure providers'and supporting teams lacking DevOps expertise. Member-owned hardware mitigates risks of service disruptions, as seen in the Hetzner-Solana case. By acting as an IT department, the IBP enables parachain teams to focus on development, streamlining operations. Strict SLAs, like 99.99% uptime, ensure reliability, effectively resolving these critical vulnerabilities.

Justification

The proposal explicitly targets centralized dependency and DevOps gaps, with evidence like the Hydration case showing practical impact. SLAs and member-owned infrastructure provide robust solutions, fully addressing these weaknesses.

Score: 10/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal strongly promotes parachain development and user retention, with indirect support for interoperability. It provides RPC services to 11 parachains, enabling teams to focus on innovation. Global coverage and fast response times, like 19ms, enhance user experience, reducing dropout rates. Features like failover ensure reliability, as shown by handling 1 billion requests in 24 hours. While not directly enhancing interoperability, reliable infrastructure supports cross-chain interactions, indirectly facilitating XCM-based operations.

Justification

Extensive support for parachains and user-focused metrics demonstrate strong promotion of development and retention. Interoperability benefits are less direct, relying on infrastructure stability, which slightly lowers the score.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 36/40 | Average: 9.00/10 (90%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal unequivocally falls within the scope of the Treasurer origin, as it requests 1,027,732 DOT to fund the Infrastructure Builders Program’s bounty for retroactive payments of critical infrastructure services, such as RPC endpoints and IT support. The Treasurer origin, under Track 11, is designed for treasury spending up to 10 million DOT, and this proposal’s financial allocation aligns precisely with this purpose, detailing service costs and governance without involving other governance actions.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on treasury funding for infrastructure services matches the Treasurer origin’s parameters, with the requested amount well within the 10 million DOT limit. Its detailed cost breakdowns and alignment with treasury spending protocols confirm a clear fit, leaving no ambiguity.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

The proposal builds on prior initiatives, specifically Kusama Bounty 19, approved via Referendum 35 in December 2022, and Polkadot Referendum 649, both of which successfully funded similar infrastructure services. These referenda, focused on establishing and expanding the IBP’s decentralized infrastructure, were approved by the community, demonstrating a positive track record for such proposals and reinforcing the current proposal’s contextual relevance.

Justification

References to Kusama Referendum 35 and Polkadot Referendum 649, both executed successfully, confirm the existence of comparable proposals with favorable outcomes. Governance platform data verifies their approval, providing strong historical precedent.

Score: 10/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully, as the proposal addresses a vital need for funding essential infrastructure services that support Polkadot’s ecosystem, handling over 14.9 billion requests in 30 days. Its comprehensive details, including governance via a 3-of-5 multisig and cost efficiencies, ensure transparency and align with decentralized governance principles, without overwhelming the system within the Treasurer origin’s 28-day decision period.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on critical services, backed by metrics and a robust governance structure, demonstrates purposeful use. Its alignment with established tracks and periods indicates it leverages the system appropriately, not burdening it.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 30/30 | Average: 10.00/10 (100%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested 1,027,732 DOT, approximately $4,277,421 USD, is proportionate to the demonstrated and potential benefits of the Infrastructure Builders Program, which supports Polkadot’s ecosystem by providing critical RPC and IT services. Handling over 14.9 billion requests in 30 days, the IBP ensures network reliability and scalability. Actual costs of $2,490,996 annually reflect efficient fund use, supporting user retention and developer productivity, though the request covers theoretical maximum capacity.

Justification

The IBP’s role in managing 552 Relay/System-chain and 154 Parachain nodes, with metrics like 19ms response times and 99.99% uptime, demonstrates significant benefits. The retroactive payment model ensures funds match service delivery. The lower actual cost versus the requested amount justifies the proportionality, with minor uncertainty due to the maximum capacity buffer.

Score: 9/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework is reasonable compared to other Polkadot ecosystem proposals, such as the Polkadot Blockchain Academy’s 248,986 DOT request for education. The IBP’s $4,277,421 USD supports ecosystem-wide infrastructure, with detailed cost breakdowns averaging $341.26 per node monthly. Cost-saving measures, like bulk traffic discounts, align with treasury spending norms, though direct IBP funding comparisons are limited.

Justification

The proposal’s costs are justified by its broad impact, supporting all parachains versus narrower scopes like education. Comparisons to proposals like Substrate-etl 2.0’s 325,000 DOT show similar scales. Detailed pricing and savings measures enhance reasonableness, but the absence of exact prior IBP funding data slightly limits direct benchmarking.

Score: 8/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury and Polkadot network gain enhanced reliability, developer support, and decentralization. The IBP’s services, handling 14.9 billion requests monthly, ensure fast response times and high uptime, improving user experience. It reduces developer infrastructure burdens, fosters ecosystem growth, and mitigates centralized provider risks, positioning Polkadot competitively with resilient, scalable infrastructure.

Justification

Metrics like 19ms latency and support for applications like Polkadot.js demonstrate user and developer benefits. Decentralized hardware enhances resilience, as shown by handling 1 billion requests in 24 hours. These align with treasury goals of ecosystem growth, making the expenditure highly valuable.

Score: 10/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly discuss cheaper alternatives, but its cost-effective design, using member-owned hardware and averaged AWS/GCP pricing with discounts, implies centralized providers were evaluated. Cost reductions, like lowering engineering rates to $100 per hour, show efficiency efforts. The decentralized model’s benefits outweigh potential cheaper centralized options, prioritizing resilience.

Justification

The IBP’s pricing, with node costs like $1,616 for Polkadot, is competitive. Cost-saving measures and the strategic choice of decentralization over centralized providers, which risk disruptions like the Hetzner incident, justify the approach. Lack of explicit alternative discussion slightly weakens transparency.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 35/40 | Average: 8.75/10 (88%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal clearly outlines that the 1,027,732 DOT will fund the Infrastructure Builders Program’s RPC and IT services, with allocations of $2,260,499.04 for Relay/System chains, up to $1,578,522.24 for parachains, and $438,400 for global services. Key performance indicators include 99-99.99% uptime and response times under 100 ms. Metrics show 14.9 billion requests handled in 30 days. Milestones are tied to provider rankings, such as achieving Rank 6 after three months of high availability.

Justification

Detailed fund allocations and specific KPIs, like uptime and latency, ensure transparency. Metrics, such as request volumes, and milestones via the ranking system provide clear tracking mechanisms. The building fund’s project prioritization lacks minor detail, slightly limiting completeness.

Score: 9/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Budgets are detailed, totaling $4,277,421.28, with $341.26 per node monthly for Relay/System chains. Work packages include RPC node deployment and GeoDNS development across 12 locations. Timelines are implicit for ongoing services but explicit for rank progression, like three-month Rank 6 requirements, aligning with continuous operations.

Justification

Comprehensive budget breakdowns and defined work packages ensure clarity. Timelines suit ongoing services, with rank milestones providing structure. Lack of explicit schedules for potential expansions, like new locations, slightly reduces specificity.

Score: 8/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Success criteria are robust, including 99-99.99% uptime, response times under 100 ms, handling peak loads like 1 billion requests in 24 hours, and positive user feedback, as seen with Hydration’s latency resolution. The provider ranking system, with downranking for SLA breaches, ensures ongoing performance evaluation.

Justification

Measurable criteria, covering uptime, latency, load capacity, and user satisfaction, enable thorough evaluation. The ranking system’s penalties add accountability, making criteria comprehensive and effective for assessing impact.

Score: 10/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal plans extensive documentation, requiring providers to submit expenditure records, like hardware receipts, for curator review. Monthly metrics, yearly audits by Coinstudio, and planned public dashboards ensure reporting. Multisig governance by five curators further supports transparent fund tracking.

Justification

Expenditure documentation, regular metrics, audits, and public dashboards provide a robust transparency framework. Curator oversight ensures accountability, aligning with governance principles, leaving no significant gaps in reporting plans.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 37/40 | Average: 9.25/10 (93%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The Infrastructure Builders Program, represented by Amforc, has made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem since 2022, providing critical RPC and IT services. These services, handling 14.9 billion requests in 30 days, support applications like Polkadot.js and Talisman Wallet. The IBP’s decentralized infrastructure mitigated risks from centralized providers, as seen post-Hetzner incident, with usage metrics and community reliance confirming their impact.

Justification

Metrics like 14.9 billion requests and adoption by major applications provide clear evidence of contributions. The IBP’s role in enhancing ecosystem resilience is traceable through its response to centralized provider vulnerabilities, solidifying its integral presence.

Score: 10/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The IBP has successfully implemented key projects, including a rapid RPC endpoint deployment for the Hydration parachain in 2024, resolving latency issues globally, and managing 1 billion requests in 24 hours during the 2023 DOT Ordinals event. Their global RPC network achieves 19 ms response times, significantly outperforming competitors, demonstrating scalability and reliability.

Justification

The Hydration and DOT Ordinals projects highlight the IBP’s ability to deliver responsive, high-capacity solutions. Detailed performance metrics and specific examples in the proposal confirm these successes, showcasing their operational strength.

Score: 10/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Community feedback from the Hydration team praises the IBP’s effective latency solutions, and approvals of Polkadot Referendum 649 and Kusama Bounty 19 reflect trust. While code repositories are not specified, governance outcomes and user testimonials serve as robust public references, reinforcing the IBP’s credibility.

Justification

Hydration’s feedback and successful referenda provide transparent credibility markers. The absence of code repositories is minor, as infrastructure services prioritize performance metrics over open-source code, which is adequately covered by other references.

Score: 9/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The IBP team, with members having over six years of system administration and DevOps experience, is highly capable. They maintain 99.99% uptime, utilize GeoDNS, and managed high-demand events like DOT Ordinals. Governance by five curators ensures accountability, and cost-saving measures demonstrate adaptability, positioning them to deliver sustained infrastructure services.

Justification

Proven expertise, past successes, and strict SLAs confirm technical capability. Curator oversight and operational resilience, saving $500,000-$600,000 annually, ensure reliable delivery, with no significant barriers to achieving outcomes.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

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