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: Please vote NAY

Track: 14 | Origin: GeneralAdmin | Amount:

Status: Rejected

Summary of the proposal

The proposal to make PolkaIdentity a username authority on Polkadot has been withdrawn due to concerns about a potential future change to enforce a single-authority model within the identity pallet. PolkaIdentity is a fully automated platform focused on identities at People Chain. The proposal aimed to make PolkaIdentity an authority for usernames, allowing users to register their username and providing necessary tools for other services like mobile wallets and dApps. The proponents, WinterStamp (Leonardo Custodio) and Jay Stormy (João Pedro Novochadlo), have experience in software engineering, blockchain development, and marketing.

ANALYSIS

■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%)