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?

The expert personas shown here are completely fictional and AI-generated. The portraits, names, backgrounds, and credentials are created using artificial intelligence. These personas do not represent real people or actual institutional affiliations. This tool serves as a framework for structured Polkadot governance proposal analysis. For research and the creation of SWOT and stakeholder analyses, we use: Perplexity Enterprise | Mode: Research | Web, Academic, Social, Finance, Wiley. For the creation of the final analysis, we use: Claude Pro | Opus 4.1 | Mode: Advanced Reasoning | Research | Web Search

Referendum-Info

Title: Incognitee: Privacy Sidechain on Polkadot Asset Hub (Retroactive)

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 201.140 USDT

Status: Executed

Summary of the proposal

Integritee has launched its privacy sidechain technology on Polkadot Asset Hub, allowing private transfers for DOT, USDCe, USDTe, ETH, and WBTC. They have submitted a proposal covering efforts from July 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, requesting 171,498 CHF (approximately 201,140 USD or USDT). This funding is considered a soft-loan, which Integritee plans to repay to the treasury with 30% of their gross fee revenue until the loan and a 10% premium are repaid. The proposal has references to previous approvals and initial discussions. Integritee's CTO, brenzi, has presented their work at various events and provided resources for understanding the importance of privacy and how Integritee can contribute to it.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal by Integritee to fund the retroactive development of a privacy sidechain on the Polkadot Asset Hub significantly contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development and relevance. By enabling private transactions for assets like DOT, USDCe, USDTe, ETH, and WBTC, it addresses the growing demand for confidentiality in blockchain applications, enhancing Polkadot’s appeal to users and developers seeking privacy-focused solutions. This functionality can drive adoption by attracting privacy-conscious users and projects, strengthening Polkadot’s position in the competitive blockchain landscape. The sidechain’s integration with the Asset Hub ensures compatibility with Polkadot’s ecosystem, fostering resilience through scalable privacy solutions. The repayment model, redirecting 30% of fee revenues to the treasury, supports long-term ecosystem funding, reinforcing sustainability.

Justification

The privacy sidechain directly enhances Polkadot’s feature set, making it more versatile and competitive. Privacy is a critical factor for user adoption in decentralized finance and governance applications, which are core to Polkadot’s vision. The repayment mechanism ensures ongoing financial contributions to the ecosystem, supporting future development. The sidechain’s scalability and asset support indicate a robust, long-term solution that aligns with Polkadot’s goal of being a leading interoperable blockchain network.

Score: 8/10

■Question 2 of 19

2. What sustainable added value does the proposal bring to the Polkadot ecosystem in the long term, beyond the immediate project duration?

Integritee’s proposal delivers sustainable added value by establishing a privacy sidechain that continues to operate beyond the nine-month funding period, providing ongoing confidentiality for transactions on the Polkadot Asset Hub. This infrastructure supports a wide range of applications, from private payments to confidential voting, fostering a robust environment for developers and users. The commitment to repay the funding with 30% of gross fee revenues, plus a 10% premium, creates a financial feedback loop that bolsters the Polkadot treasury’s capacity to fund future initiatives. By enhancing Polkadot’s privacy capabilities, the proposal ensures the ecosystem remains relevant in a blockchain landscape where data protection is increasingly prioritized, encouraging sustained user and project engagement.

Justification

The sidechain’s operation is designed to persist, offering continuous privacy services that enhance Polkadot’s utility. The revenue-sharing model directly contributes to the treasury, creating a sustainable funding mechanism. Privacy functionality addresses a long-term need in blockchain ecosystems, ensuring Polkadot’s competitiveness and appeal to diverse use cases, which supports sustained ecosystem growth.

Score: 9/10

■Question 3 of 19

3. Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal effectively addresses a structural weakness in Polkadot’s ecosystem: the lack of native privacy features for transactions. Most blockchain networks, including Polkadot, inherently prioritize transparency, which limits their suitability for applications requiring confidentiality, such as private financial transactions or sensitive governance processes. Integritee’s sidechain introduces a scalable solution for private asset transfers on the Asset Hub, filling this gap without compromising the network’s performance. By enabling privacy for multiple assets, the proposal mitigates a key limitation, making Polkadot more versatile and attractive to users and developers who require secure, confidential interactions within the ecosystem.

Justification

Privacy is a recognized gap in many public blockchains, including Polkadot, where transaction details are typically visible. The sidechain provides a targeted solution, leveraging Trusted Execution Environments to ensure confidentiality. This directly addresses a structural deficiency, enhancing Polkadot’s functionality and broadening its applicability across use cases that demand privacy.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

Integritee’s proposal strongly promotes interoperability and user retention within the Polkadot ecosystem. The privacy sidechain, deployed on the Asset Hub, supports seamless private transfers for multiple assets, enhancing interoperability by integrating with Polkadot’s cross-chain architecture. This functionality encourages users to remain within the ecosystem for privacy needs, boosting retention by reducing reliance on external platforms. Additionally, the sidechain’s availability provides parachains with a tool to incorporate privacy into their applications, potentially spurring development of new use cases like confidential voting or private DeFi protocols. By enhancing Polkadot’s feature set, the proposal fosters a more cohesive and attractive ecosystem for both users and developers.

Justification

The sidechain’s integration with the Asset Hub ensures compatibility with Polkadot’s interoperable framework, facilitating asset movement across chains. Privacy features incentivize users to stay within Polkadot, enhancing retention. The infrastructure supports parachain developers by offering privacy tools, which can drive innovative application development, aligning with Polkadot’s goal of fostering a vibrant ecosystem.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 1

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

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal by Integritee for retroactive funding of its privacy sidechain development clearly falls within the scope of the MediumSpender origin under Polkadot’s Treasury track. Requesting approximately 201,140 USDT, it aligns with the MediumSpender track’s parameters, which allow treasury spends up to 500,000 DOT for moderately significant funding needs. The proposal seeks to support ongoing development and maintenance of a privacy infrastructure that benefits the Polkadot ecosystem, fitting the Treasury’s purpose of funding projects that enhance network functionality. The structured repayment plan, involving 30% of fee revenues, further demonstrates alignment with responsible treasury utilization, ensuring ecosystem reinvestment.

Justification

According to Polkadot’s OpenGov documentation, the MediumSpender track is designed for proposals requiring substantial but not excessive treasury funds, typically for projects with broad ecosystem impact. Integritee’s request, equivalent to a moderate portion of the treasury’s capacity, matches this scope. The proposal’s focus on privacy infrastructure development and its repayment commitment align with the Treasury’s goal of supporting sustainable ecosystem growth, confirming its appropriateness for the MediumSpender origin.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Integritee’s proposal has comparable predecessors in Polkadot’s treasury funding history, notably Referenda #997 and #617, both of which provided retroactive funding for Integritee’s privacy sidechain work and were approved. These proposals similarly sought treasury support for development costs, with commitments to repay funds via fee revenues, mirroring the current structure. While specific outcomes of #997 and #617 are not detailed in available data, their approval indicates community support for Integritee’s contributions. No other directly comparable privacy-focused proposals are identified, but the precedent of Integritee’s prior approvals suggests a recognized value in their work.

Justification

The proposal explicitly references Referenda #997 and #617, which funded similar privacy sidechain efforts by Integritee and were successfully passed, establishing a track record. The repayment model and retroactive funding approach are consistent with these prior proposals, reinforcing their comparability. The lack of additional comparable proposals limits broader context, but the successful precedent of Integritee’s earlier funding requests supports the proposal’s alignment with established treasury practices.

Score: 7/10

■Question 7 of 19

7. Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

Integritee’s proposal meaningfully engages Polkadot’s governance system by leveraging the OpenGov framework to secure funding for a high-impact privacy solution while adhering to treasury track protocols. The proposal’s detailed documentation, prior discussion post, and structured repayment plan demonstrate a responsible approach, ensuring transparency and accountability. By addressing a critical ecosystem need—privacy—it contributes to strategic network development without overburdening the system. The MediumSpender track’s parameters accommodate such requests, and the proposal’s clarity and precedent suggest it integrates smoothly into the governance process without causing undue strain.

Justification

Polkadot’s OpenGov system is designed to handle diverse proposals through tracks like MediumSpender, which balance scrutiny and efficiency. Integritee’s proposal follows established procedures, including preimage submission and discussion, aligning with governance best practices. Its focus on a key ecosystem enhancement and commitment to treasury repayment indicate a meaningful contribution rather than a burden, as it supports the system’s goal of fostering impactful projects without overwhelming governance resources.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 24/30 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested amount of approximately 201,140 USDT for Integritee’s privacy sidechain development is proportionate to the potential benefits it offers the Polkadot ecosystem. The sidechain enables private transactions for multiple assets, addressing a critical need for confidentiality that can drive user adoption and developer engagement. The repayment commitment of 30% of fee revenues plus a 10% premium ensures the treasury recovers its investment, enhancing financial sustainability. The demonstrated functionality, already supporting assets like DOT and stablecoins, underscores its immediate value, while future applications like private voting amplify its long-term impact, justifying the funding request.

Justification

The sidechain’s operational status and support for key assets demonstrate tangible benefits, aligning with the funding amount. Privacy is a high-value feature in blockchain ecosystems, and its integration into Polkadot’s Asset Hub could attract significant use cases. The repayment structure mitigates financial risk, making the cost reasonable relative to the ecosystem’s potential growth in adoption and functionality.

Score: 8/10

■Question 9 of 19

9. Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Integritee’s budget framework of 201,140 USDT for nine months of retroactive funding is reasonable when compared to similar Polkadot treasury proposals, such as Referenda #997 and #617, which also funded Integritee’s privacy work. These prior proposals, approved for comparable development efforts, suggest a consistent cost structure for specialized blockchain infrastructure. The budget covers development, maintenance, and operational costs for a complex privacy solution using Trusted Execution Environments, which inherently demands significant resources. The repayment model further aligns the budget with ecosystem norms, ensuring accountability.

Justification

The precedent set by Referenda #997 and #617 indicates that Integritee’s funding requests are within acceptable ranges for privacy-focused treasury proposals. The budget’s alignment with prior approved amounts for similar technical work, combined with the repayment commitment, supports its reasonableness. No evidence suggests significant deviation from standard costs for such infrastructure projects in Polkadot.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Polkadot Treasury and network gain specific added value through Integritee’s proposal, primarily via a functional privacy sidechain that enhances ecosystem capabilities. This infrastructure supports private transactions for key assets, fostering user retention and attracting privacy-focused applications. The Treasury benefits from a repayment plan where 30% of fee revenues, plus a 10% premium, are returned, enabling future project funding. The sidechain’s scalability ensures ongoing utility, potentially increasing Polkadot’s relevance in privacy-sensitive use cases like decentralized finance and governance, directly benefiting the network’s competitiveness.

Justification

The sidechain’s immediate functionality and future potential for applications like private voting deliver clear value to the network. The repayment mechanism provides a direct financial return to the Treasury, supporting its sustainability. By addressing a privacy gap, the proposal enhances Polkadot’s appeal, offering both tangible infrastructure and strategic advantages in the blockchain landscape.

Score: 9/10

■Question 11 of 19

11. Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly detail whether cheaper alternatives were considered for achieving the privacy sidechain’s objectives. Integritee’s approach leverages Trusted Execution Environments, a specialized technology requiring significant development resources, suggesting limited room for cost reduction without compromising functionality. The retroactive nature of the funding implies the work is already completed, reducing the relevance of alternative considerations at this stage. However, the repayment model mitigates financial burden, and prior successful funding rounds indicate acceptance of Integritee’s cost structure, though explicit exploration of alternatives is absent.

Justification

The lack of discussion on cheaper alternatives in the proposal or related documents weakens this aspect, as governance best practices encourage evaluating cost-efficient options. The technical complexity of privacy solutions and the established precedent of similar funding suggest Integritee’s approach is standard, but the absence of documented alternatives limits transparency in cost optimization.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

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

Integritee’s proposal communicates the purpose of the 201,140 USDT funding as retroactive support for privacy sidechain development from July 2024 to March 2025, but it lacks detailed clarity on specific fund allocations. The funds cover development, maintenance, and operational costs, yet no explicit KPIs, milestones, or metrics are provided to quantify progress or impact. The repayment plan, involving 30% of fee revenues, is outlined, but without performance indicators, tracking the funds’ effectiveness is challenging. While the sidechain’s functionality is demonstrated, the absence of measurable goals limits transparency in fund utilization.

Justification

The proposal specifies the general purpose of the funds but omits granular details on expenditure breakdown or performance metrics. Effective treasury proposals typically include KPIs or milestones to ensure accountability. The retroactive nature may reduce the need for future-oriented metrics, but the lack of specific indicators hampers evidence-based evaluation, falling short of best practices for transparency.

Score: 5/10

■Question 13 of 19

13. Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal clearly specifies the budget as 201,140 USDT and the timeline as a nine-month period from July 2024 to March 2025 for retroactive funding. However, work packages are only broadly described as covering development, maintenance, and operations of the privacy sidechain, without a detailed breakdown of tasks or resource allocation. While the total funding amount and timeframe are explicit, the lack of granular work package descriptions limits the ability to trace how funds are distributed across specific activities, reducing overall transparency.

Justification

Polkadot treasury proposals benefit from detailed budgets and work package specifications to ensure traceability. Integritee provides the total budget and timeline, meeting basic requirements, but the absence of a task-level breakdown or cost allocation for specific activities falls short of comprehensive clarity. This partial specificity aligns with minimal expectations but does not fully enable detailed tracking.

Score: 6/10

■Question 14 of 19

14. Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Integritee’s proposal does not explicitly define success criteria for evaluating the impact of the funded work. The sidechain’s operational status and support for private transactions are presented as outcomes, but no measurable benchmarks, such as user adoption rates, transaction volumes, or application development, are outlined. The repayment commitment provides a financial metric, yet it is not tied to specific performance goals. Without clear criteria, assessing the proposal’s success post-implementation is difficult, limiting the ability to evaluate its effectiveness systematically.

Justification

Success criteria are essential for evidence-based evaluation in treasury proposals, enabling stakeholders to assess impact. The proposal’s focus on an operational sidechain implies functionality as a goal, but the lack of quantifiable targets or evaluation metrics undermines accountability. The repayment plan offers some financial accountability, but broader success indicators are absent, reducing traceability.

Score: 4/10

■Question 15 of 19

15. Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not explicitly mention plans for ongoing documentation or reporting beyond the initial submission and prior discussion posts. While Integritee references past presentations and a detailed proposal document, there is no commitment to regular updates, progress reports, or final evaluations to track the funded work’s impact. The repayment of 30% of fee revenues suggests some financial tracking, but without a stated reporting mechanism, stakeholders lack assurance of consistent transparency. This omission hinders the ability to monitor fund use and outcomes effectively.

Justification

Transparent treasury proposals typically include commitments to periodic reporting or documentation to ensure accountability. Integritee’s reliance on the initial proposal and past communications, without a clear plan for ongoing reporting, falls short of governance best practices. The repayment structure implies some financial oversight, but the absence of explicit reporting plans limits traceability and stakeholder confidence.

Score: 3/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

Answer

Integritee AG, the proposer, has made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem through its development of privacy-focused infrastructure. Since securing a Kusama parachain in 2021 and a Polkadot parachain in 2022, Integritee has deployed a privacy sidechain on the Polkadot Asset Hub, supporting private transactions for assets like DOT and stablecoins. Prior treasury funding via Referenda #997 and #617 supported similar efforts, indicating a consistent track record. Integritee’s SubstraTEE framework and Teeracle oracle further enhance Polkadot’s interoperability and privacy capabilities, with contributions documented in public presentations and technical guides.

Justification

Integritee’s parachain wins and prior treasury-funded projects demonstrate tangible ecosystem contributions. The sidechain’s operational status and asset support are verifiable, while SubstraTEE and Teeracle show technical advancements. Public records of funding and presentations provide traceability, though community feedback is not considered per instructions. These efforts confirm Integritee’s active role in advancing Polkadot’s privacy infrastructure.

Score: 8/10

■Question 17 of 19

17. What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Integritee has successfully implemented several projects within the Polkadot ecosystem. The privacy sidechain, Incognitee, deployed on the Polkadot Asset Hub, enables private transfers for assets like DOT, USDCe, USDTe, ETH, and WBTC. Integritee secured Kusama and Polkadot parachains in 2021 and 2022, respectively, establishing a scalable privacy network. The SubstraTEE framework integrates trusted execution environments with Substrate-based chains, and the Teeracle oracle bridges Web2 and Web3 data. Past treasury-funded projects under Referenda #997 and #617 also supported privacy sidechain development, indicating successful delivery.

Justification

The operational Incognitee sidechain and parachain deployments are concrete achievements, directly enhancing Polkadot’s privacy capabilities. SubstraTEE and Teeracle are documented projects with practical applications, while prior treasury approvals suggest successful execution. These projects align with Integritee’s expertise in privacy and interoperability, confirming a strong implementation history within the ecosystem.

Score: 9/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Integritee’s credibility is supported by publicly accessible references, including technical documentation, presentations, and blog posts detailing their privacy sidechain and related technologies. Their SubstraTEE framework and Teeracle oracle are outlined in developer-focused guides, though specific code repositories are not explicitly cited in the proposal. Publications on their website cover tokenomics, sidechain mechanics, and integrations like XCM with Moonriver. Past engagements, such as Web3 Foundation grants in 2019-2020 and Polkadot Decoded presentations, further validate their expertise. Community feedback is excluded per instructions.

Justification

Integritee provides substantial public documentation through blog posts, technical guides, and presentations, establishing transparency in their technical contributions. While code repositories are not directly referenced, the detailed SDK and framework descriptions suggest open development. Their history of grants and event participation reinforces credibility, though explicit repository links could strengthen this further.

Score: 7/10

■Question 19 of 19

19. Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Integritee’s team appears capable of delivering the promised outcomes based on their proven track record and technical expertise. Having successfully deployed the Incognitee sidechain, secured parachains, and developed SubstraTEE and Teeracle, they demonstrate proficiency in privacy and blockchain solutions. The team includes advisors like Joe Petrowski, a Web3 Foundation veteran, enhancing strategic and technical capacity. The retroactive funding nature of the proposal, covering already-completed work, further assures delivery, as the sidechain is operational. The repayment plan indicates financial accountability.

Justification

Integritee’s history of delivering complex projects like Incognitee and parachain integrations shows technical capability. Their advisor’s expertise and prior funding successes suggest robust project management. The retroactive funding minimizes delivery risk, as outcomes are already achieved, though ongoing maintenance relies on their continued competence, which past performance supports.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 32/40 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)