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

Set Snowbridge-wrapped USDC & USDT as sufficient assets, set their ED to $0.01, and set their metadata on Asset Hub

Track: 1 | Origin: WhitelistedCaller | Amount:

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The proposer aims to configure Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets on the Asset Hub with a $0.01 existential deposit and registered metadata.

Ecosystem Impact

This enhances Polkadot’s interoperability with Ethereum and lowers participation barriers by enabling Stablecoin-based accounts.

Proposed Action

The proposer seeks to pass a referendum to execute a whitelisted call configuring USDC and USDT as sufficient assets with a $0.01 ED and metadata registration, with no funding requested.

Expected Outcomes

The proposal will allow users to maintain accounts using only USDC or USDT, increasing accessibility and Stablecoin adoption within the Polkadot ecosystem.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal to configure Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets with a $0.01 existential deposit and registered metadata does not significantly contribute to the long-term security, scalability, or decentralization of the Polkadot network. It primarily enhances usability by allowing stablecoin-based accounts, potentially increasing user participation and transaction volume. This could indirectly support scalability through broader adoption and cross-chain interactions via Snowbridge. However, it does not alter the network’s consensus mechanisms, validator operations, or staking processes, which are central to security and decentralization. The reliance on centralized stablecoins introduces a minor centralization risk, offsetting potential decentralization benefits from a larger user base.

Justification

Security in Polkadot depends on its proof-of-stake system and validator integrity, which this proposal does not address. Scalability might see marginal benefits from increased transaction volume, but no direct improvements to block processing or network capacity are proposed. Decentralization is not enhanced, as the proposal focuses on usability rather than governance or validator distribution, and stablecoins are centrally issued. The proposal’s impact is limited to facilitating user access, not core network properties.

Score: 3/10

■Question 2 of 19

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

The proposal does not specifically address existing vulnerabilities or bottlenecks in the Polkadot ecosystem. It focuses on enabling Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets to improve user accessibility, allowing accounts to exist without holding DOT. While this mitigates the usability barrier of requiring native tokens for account maintenance, it does not tackle technical vulnerabilities, such as potential exploits in the consensus mechanism, or bottlenecks, like transaction throughput limitations or parachain slot allocation delays. The proposal’s scope is limited to enhancing stablecoin integration, not resolving systemic issues.

Justification

Polkadot’s known bottlenecks include parachain onboarding delays and transaction processing capacity, while vulnerabilities might involve governance exploits or bridge security. The proposal does not engage with these areas, focusing instead on a usability improvement. The low existential deposit could theoretically increase spam accounts, but this is not framed as addressing a current vulnerability. Its impact is functional rather than corrective.

Score: 2/10

■Question 3 of 19

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

The proposal aligns well with Polkadot’s strategic direction and roadmap, particularly its focus on interoperability and user experience. By configuring Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets, it enhances cross-chain functionality with Ethereum, supporting Polkadot’s goal of a multi-chain ecosystem. It also improves accessibility for users preferring stablecoins, aligning with efforts to broaden adoption and streamline interactions. This fosters sustainable development by attracting diverse users and enabling parachains to integrate stablecoins, enhancing the network’s utility and economic activity.

Justification

Polkadot’s roadmap emphasizes interoperability, cross-chain messaging, and user-centric improvements, as seen in initiatives like XCM and coretime. The proposal directly supports these by leveraging Snowbridge for Ethereum integration and reducing barriers to entry. It promotes sustainable growth by expanding the user base and use cases, aligning with Polkadot’s vision of a scalable, interconnected blockchain network.

Score: 8/10

■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?

he proposal brings broad value to multiple actors in the Polkadot ecosystem, including end users, parachains, and developers, rather than serving a narrow interest group. End users benefit from the ability to maintain accounts using USDC or USDT, lowering entry barriers. Parachains gain enhanced functionality for DeFi and other applications by integrating stablecoins. Developers can build more accessible applications, expanding use cases. Validators may see indirect benefits from increased network activity, though their direct gains are limited. This wide-ranging impact supports diverse ecosystem participants.

Justification

Stablecoins are widely used, making the proposal relevant to a broad user base, not a niche group. Parachains, especially those focused on DeFi, benefit from stablecoin integration, while developers gain flexibility. Validators benefit indirectly through potential network growth, though not through immediate rewards. The proposal’s focus on accessibility and interoperability ensures value across multiple ecosystem layers, avoiding exclusivity to a small group.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 22/40 | Average: 5.50/10 (55%)

■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?

The proposal is clearly within the scope of the WhitelistedCaller origin, as it involves configuring Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets on the Asset Hub, a system-wide change requiring root privileges. The WhitelistedCaller origin is designed for pre-approved technical calls, vetted by the Fellowship, to be executed with root-level permissions after referendum approval. This proposal, correcting a prior technical error from Proposal #1510, aligns with this purpose by implementing asset configuration changes. There is no indication that it oversteps governance competencies, as it adheres to the origin’s role in managing technical updates to system parachains.

Justification

The WhitelistedCaller origin, as defined in Polkadot’s governance documentation, is intended for specific, Fellowship-approved calls requiring root access, such as asset configurations on the Asset Hub. The proposal’s focus on setting existential deposits and registering metadata fits this scope, and its status as a redo suggests prior Fellowship whitelisting. No evidence suggests it exceeds the origin’s authority or involves non-technical governance matters.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

There are precedents for similar proposals processed through the WhitelistedCaller origin, confirming that this proposal is following the correct governance path. Previous referenda have used the WhitelistedCaller origin for technical changes, such as executing dispatchWhitelistedCallWithPreimage for system updates, including asset configurations and runtime adjustments. These examples demonstrate that proposals involving pre-approved, root-level technical calls are routinely handled via this track, aligning with the current proposal’s approach to correcting a technical error and implementing asset changes.

Justification

A review of Polkadot’s referendum history shows multiple instances of WhitelistedCaller being used for technical calls, such as referenda for runtime upgrades or system parachain modifications. The similarity between Proposal #1529 and its predecessor, Proposal #1510, which also used this origin, further supports the correct application of this governance path. This established practice validates the proposal’s processing.

Score: 10/10

■Question 7 of 19

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

The governance process is being used meaningfully with this proposal, adhering to established procedures without bypassing or burdening them. The WhitelistedCaller origin, designed for fast-tracked, pre-approved technical changes, is appropriate for correcting the technical error from Proposal #1510. The proposal follows the standard referendum process, requiring community approval after Fellowship whitelisting, ensuring proper scrutiny. No evidence suggests it imposes unnecessary burdens, as it leverages the origin’s efficiency for a straightforward technical fix.

Justification

The WhitelistedCaller origin’s parameters, including a 30-minute prepare period and 28-day decision period, are tailored for efficient handling of pre-vetted calls. The proposal’s resubmission to correct a specific error demonstrates adherence to governance norms, with no attempt to circumvent Fellowship or community oversight. Its simplicity and focus prevent undue strain on the governance system.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 30/30 | Average: 10.00/10 (100%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The potential risks of configuring Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets, such as spam accounts from the $0.01 existential deposit and centralization concerns due to stablecoin issuers, are proportionate to the expected benefits. These benefits include increased user accessibility, broader adoption, and enhanced interoperability with Ethereum. Polkadot’s transaction fee structure mitigates spam by requiring DOT for fees, and stablecoin centralization is a user-driven choice, not a network imposition. The proposal’s advantages, such as attracting new users and supporting cross-chain functionality, outweigh the manageable risks, ensuring a favorable balance for the network’s growth.

Justification

The low existential deposit could lead to account proliferation, but Polkadot’s fee mechanisms limit abuse. Stablecoin centralization is inherent but does not affect network operations directly. Benefits like user growth and interoperability align with Polkadot’s goals, justifying the risks.

Score: 8/10

■Question 9 of 19

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

The technical effort required to configure USDC and USDT as sufficient assets with a $0.01 existential deposit and registered metadata is minimal and justified by the significant impact. This straightforward change leverages existing Asset Hub functionality, introducing no notable complexity. The impact includes enabling stablecoin-based accounts, reducing entry barriers, and enhancing Ethereum interoperability, which can drive user adoption and network activity. The low effort relative to these outcomes makes the proposal highly efficient, aligning with Polkadot’s aim to improve usability.

Justification

The proposal involves a standard configuration, requiring no new development or complex integration. Its impact on accessibility and cross-chain use cases is substantial, supporting Polkadot’s strategic objectives without resource strain.

Score: 10/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The proposal’s approach to configure Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets appears to be the most resource-efficient method to achieve the goal of enabling stablecoin-based accounts. Alternatives, such as using higher existential deposits or different assets, would reduce accessibility or interoperability, undermining the objective. As a correction of a prior proposal, this method has been vetted, suggesting it is optimal. No alternative solutions are documented, indicating this standard configuration is the preferred choice for efficiency and effectiveness.

Justification

The minimal resource requirements and alignment with Asset Hub capabilities suggest this is the best approach. Alternatives would likely compromise the proposal’s goals or require more effort, and the resubmission context implies a refined choice.

Score: 9/10

■Question 11 of 19

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

The proposal creates no significant long-term obligations or maintenance efforts beyond routine Asset Hub operations. Configuring the assets is a one-time action, with no additional upkeep indicated. The sustainable benefits, including increased user engagement, broader adoption, and ongoing cross-chain interactions, justify any minimal maintenance within the existing framework. These outcomes enhance Polkadot’s ecosystem without imposing ongoing costs, ensuring long-term efficiency and value.

Justification

The Asset Hub is designed to handle multiple assets, and this configuration adds no unique maintenance burden. The enduring benefits of user growth and interoperability support Polkadot’s sustainability without notable obligations.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 37/40 | Average: 9.25/10 (93%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal clearly communicates the specific systemic changes, which involve configuring Snowbridge-wrapped USDC and USDT as sufficient assets on the Asset Hub, setting their existential deposit to $0.01, and registering metadata with defined names, symbols, and decimals. The goal is to enable users to maintain accounts using these stablecoins without holding DOT, thereby enhancing accessibility and promoting liquidity within the Polkadot ecosystem. This is articulated in public descriptions on governance platforms, ensuring stakeholders understand the changes and their purpose, though additional context on ecosystem-wide impacts could enhance clarity.

Justification

The proposal’s descriptions explicitly detail the asset configuration changes and their intent to improve user experience, supported by precise runtime call information. The goal is evident, but the concise explanation slightly limits broader impact context, warranting a near-perfect score.

Score: 9/10

■Question 13 of 19

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

Sufficient technical details are provided to validate the proposed change, including runtime calls, Ethereum contract addresses for USDC and USDT, and metadata specifications. A publicly accessible document outlines the exact call data, minBalance adjustments, and verification steps, enabling technical scrutiny. The Fellowship’s whitelisting process implies a thorough review, confirming the change’s necessity. While a verification video supports validation, specific public testing results are not detailed, but the comprehensive information ensures stakeholders can verify the proposal’s technical soundness.

Justification

The detailed runtime calls, contract addresses, and Fellowship approval provide robust validation resources. The verification video adds credibility, and despite limited public testing data, the overall information is thorough, justifying a top score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 14 of 19

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

The proposal lacks explicit success criteria or metrics to evaluate its broader impact, such as increased user adoption or transaction volume. As a technical change, success can be assessed by verifying the correct configuration of USDC and USDT as sufficient assets, observable through on-chain functionality. This implicit metric meets the technical objective but does not address ecosystem-level impacts like liquidity or engagement, limiting comprehensive evaluation of the proposal’s long-term effects.

Justification

The technical focus allows success to be confirmed via on-chain data, but the absence of defined metrics for broader impacts restricts traceability. This partial fulfillment reflects the proposal’s scope but highlights a gap in impact assessment.

Score: 5/10

■Question 15 of 19

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

The decision-making reasons are documented through public descriptions on governance platforms, explaining the benefits of enabling stablecoin-based accounts, such as improved user experience and ecosystem liquidity. The change process is transparent, utilizing Polkadot’s governance framework with Fellowship whitelisting and community voting, detailed on accessible platforms. A related discussion and document provide further context, though specific Fellowship review details are not fully public, slightly limiting insight into internal deliberations.

Justification

Public descriptions and governance records outline the rationale and process, ensuring transparency. The lack of detailed Fellowship minutes tempers full documentation, but the available information is sufficient for a technical proposal, warranting a strong score.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

The proposer, bkchr, has made numerous successful contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem, demonstrating their ability to implement complex changes. As a developer at Parity Technologies, bkchr has contributed to the polkadot-sdk repository with merged pull requests and extensive code reviews, addressing critical technical issues. Their Rank 6 membership in the Polkadot Technical Fellowship, established in 2022, reflects significant expertise recognized by the community. The current proposal, a correction of Referendum #1510’s technical error, further showcases bkchr’s capability to navigate Polkadot’s governance and technical landscape, affirming their history of impactful contributions.

Justification

Bkchr’s contributions to polkadot-sdk, including merged pull requests and code reviews, alongside their high Fellowship rank, confirm successful engagement with complex ecosystem changes. Their role in addressing Referendum #1510’s failure reinforces their capability, warranting a top score.

Score: 10/10

■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?

Bkchr has implemented significant Polkadot improvements, including a code substitute to fix state mismatches between native and WASM runtimes (Pull Request #3093) and the addition of the propose parachain pallet (Pull Request #2243). These projects resolved critical runtime issues and enhanced protocol functionality, requiring deep technical expertise. Such work is comparable to the asset configuration in Referendum #1529, which involves precise runtime adjustments. These achievements demonstrate bkchr’s proficiency in executing technical changes, indicating strong capability to implement this proposal effectively.

Justification

Pull Requests #3093 and #2243, merged into Polkadot’s codebase, highlight bkchr’s ability to handle complex technical tasks relevant to this proposal. Their success in these areas directly supports their capacity to execute the proposed change, justifying a high score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Publicly documented evidence robustly supports bkchr’s expertise and credibility. Their Rank 6 status in the Polkadot Technical Fellowship signifies community-recognized technical prowess. Bkchr’s GitHub activity includes two merged pull requests, three open pull requests, and 25 reviews in polkadot-sdk, with approvals from peers like andresilva. Contributions to Fellowship repositories, such as runtimes and RFCs, further validate their expertise. These records, alongside their Parity Technologies affiliation, provide clear evidence of bkchr’s credibility in implementing Polkadot’s technical changes.

Justification

Bkchr’s Fellowship rank, GitHub contributions, and peer-approved pull requests offer strong evidence of expertise. Their consistent involvement in Polkadot’s technical development, accepted by the community, supports a top evaluation.

Score: 10/10

■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?

Bkchr, supported by Parity Technologies, possesses the technical expertise and organizational strength to implement Referendum #1529 effectively. Their Rank 6 Fellowship status and contributions to polkadot-sdk demonstrate deep technical knowledge. Parity’s resources, including development teams and infrastructure, enhance bkchr’s capacity. The Fellowship’s whitelisting ensures alignment with community expectations, and the proposal’s straightforward nature leverages bkchr’s proven skills, ensuring successful execution within Polkadot’s governance framework.

Justification

Bkchr’s expertise, backed by Parity’s organizational support and Fellowship oversight, ensures the proposal’s implementation meets community standards. Their track record in similar tasks confirms their capability, warranting a high score.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 40/40 | Average: 10.00/10 (100%)