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: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 57.719 DOT

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:

"Please vote Nay. We have changed the request from DOT to USDT. Please visit:
Referenda 1531"

Therefore, no further analysis has been conducted.

■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%)