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: {Vote Nay, opting PAL bounty} Audit sponsorship of micro-sr25519 package by Paul Miller (2/2)

Track: 32 | Origin: SmallSpender | Amount: 34.500 USDC

Status: Rejected

Summary of the proposal

The micro-sr25519 package, developed by Paul Miller, is an extension to support the Polkadot ecosystem and is now ready for auditing. Edgetributor SubDAO has selected Oak Security as the auditing firm. The audit will cost 34400 USD, with 5 researchers involved, and payment will be made in USDC on Ethereum. Paul Miller is the developer behind @noble packages used in various web3 ecosystems. Oak Security provides security services in the web3 space, with 52 qualified security engineers and researchers. The micro-sr25519 package is important for Polkadot ecosystem security and performance benefits. Edgetributor SubDAO will represent Oak Security in OpenGov and other operational duties, and will be responsible for the custody of the USDC payment. The budget distribution includes a requested amount of 34400 USDC and a refundable bridging buffer of 100 USDC. The total amount is 34500 USDC, and will be disbursed in two phases.

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%)