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

Please vote NAY

Track: 14 | Origin: GeneralAdmin | Amount:

Summary of the proposal

The proposers kindly ask to vote NAY.
In our view, the reasons for this request have been clearly and understandably presented:

"We’re stepping back from this proposal.

Over the past few months, we shared parts of our roadmap with many people across the ecosystem. In those conversations, the idea of issuing usernames was occasionally mentioned and, at no point, did anyone raise a concern about it, or about the possibility of multiple authorities being an issue.

Based on the current on-chain logic, and after testing that confirmed everything works as expected (including with Chopsticks), we moved forward in good faith. Only after the proposal went live did concerns emerge about a potential future change to enforce a single-authority model within the identity pallet.

To avoid unnecessary confusion, we’ve chosen to withdraw and decline the proposal.

We’re sincerely grateful to everyone who supported the initiative with votes, feedback, and encouragement. That support reflects the trust this community has placed in our vision."

Therefore, no further analysis has been conducted.

■Question 1 of 19

Does the proposal demonstrably contribute to the long-term security, scalability, or decentralization of the network?

Score: 0/10

■Question 2 of 19

Does the proposal specifically address existing vulnerabilities or bottlenecks in the Polkadot ecosystem?

Score: 0/10

■Question 3 of 19

Does the proposal align with Polkadot’s strategic direction and roadmap to promote the network’s sustainable development?

Score: 0/10

■Question 4 of 19

Does the proposal bring broad value to key actors and areas of the ecosystem (e.g., validators, parachains, end users) rather than just a small interest group?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 1

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

■Question 5 of 19

Is the proposal clearly within the scope of responsibility of the chosen origin (e.g., Root for system-wide changes), or does it overstep governance competencies?

Score: 0/10

■Question 6 of 19

Are there precedents or previous similar proposals that demonstrate this proposal is being processed correctly through this governance path?

Score: 0/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance process being used meaningfully with this proposal, without bypassing or unnecessarily burdening established procedures?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 2

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

■Question 8 of 19

Are the potential risks or negative side effects of the proposed change proportionate to the expected benefits for the network?

Score: 0/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the required technical effort or additional complexity introduced by the proposal justified by the achievable impact?

Score: 0/10

■Question 10 of 19

Have alternative solutions with lower resource requirements been considered to achieve the same goal, and why was this change chosen?

Score: 0/10

■Question 11 of 19

Does the proposal create long-term obligations or maintenance efforts, and are these sufficiently justified by the sustainable benefits?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

Is it clearly communicated what specific systemic changes are to be made and what goal is being pursued?

Score: 0/10

■Question 13 of 19

Is there sufficient information, technical details, or testing available to technically validate the proposed change and verify its necessity?

Score: 0/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there clear success criteria or metrics to evaluate the impact of the change later?

Score: 0/10

■Question 15 of 19

Are the decision-making reasons and the change process transparently documented (e.g., through public discussions, minutes, or reports)?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

Have the proposers or their team already made successful contributions or similarly complex changes in the Polkadot ecosystem?

Score: 0/10

■Question 17 of 19

What comparable projects or network improvements have the proposers implemented in the past, and what does this say about their ability to execute this proposal?

Score: 0/10

■Question 18 of 19

Are there publicly documented references, community feedback, or other evidence supporting the proposers’ expertise and credibility in this area?

Score: 0/10

■Question 19 of 19

Does the team have the necessary technical expertise and organizational strength to effectively implement this far-reaching change in line with community expectations?

Score: 0/10

■Result category 5

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