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

The Spammening Reward for Amforc

Track: 32 | Origin: SmallSpender | Amount: 45.000 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue
The proposer aims to reward Amforc with 45,000 USDT for their significant but uncompensated contributions to "The Spammening," a stress test that demonstrated the scalability of Polkadot and Kusama networks.

Ecosystem Impact
"The Spammening" is relevant to the Polkadot ecosystem as it provided critical data on network scalability, achieving record-breaking TPS benchmarks, which is essential for the ecosystem's growth and adoption.

Proposed Action
The proposal requests 45,000 USDT as a retroactive tip for Amforc, recognizing their role in organizing and executing "The Spammening," with the amount based on a precedent set by referendum #1352.

Expected Outcomes
The intended outcomes include fairly compensating Amforc, encouraging continued participation from ecosystem agents, and setting a positive precedent for recognizing valuable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem.

■Question 1 of 19

Does the proposal measurably contribute to the long-term development, adoption, resilience, or relevance of Polkadot?

The proposal contributes indirectly to Polkadot’s long-term development and relevance by rewarding Amforc for their role in "The Spammening," which demonstrated the network’s scalability with 128,184 transactions per second on Kusama, enhancing its appeal to developers and users. This incentivization of high-impact contributions fosters a culture of innovation, potentially boosting adoption and resilience. However, the proposal itself is a one-time reward, not a systemic change, limiting its direct measurable impact on these aspects. Its contribution lies in setting a precedent that encourages future initiatives, which could sustain Polkadot’s competitive edge in blockchain scalability.

Justification

The stress test’s results provide concrete evidence of Polkadot’s capabilities, making it more attractive for projects requiring high throughput, thus supporting adoption and relevance. Rewarding such work aligns with studies showing retroactive rewards increase governance participation, enhancing resilience through community engagement. Yet, as a single reward, its direct impact on long-term development is indirect, relying on future contributor behavior.

Score: 8/10

■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?

The proposal offers sustainable added value by establishing a precedent for retroactively rewarding unsolicited contributions, encouraging a culture of proactive innovation within Polkadot. By compensating Amforc for "The Spammening," it signals to contributors that impactful work may be recognized, fostering long-term engagement. This could lead to more initiatives that enhance the ecosystem’s vitality, as contributors are motivated to undertake high-risk, high-reward projects. The proposal strengthens the treasury’s tip mechanism, ensuring a sustainable incentive structure for future contributions.

Justification

The use of the tip mechanism addresses the need to reward completed work, as seen in prior referenda, and aligns with research indicating that rewards drive platform engagement. This precedent could sustain a dynamic contributor base, but its long-term impact depends on consistent application, making it strong but not transformative.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal addresses a structural weakness in Polkadot’s incentive model by using the treasury’s tip mechanism to reward unsolicited contributions, which are often underfunded. Amforc’s uncompensated work on "The Spammening" highlights this gap, as prior funding covered project costs but not their efforts. By recognizing such contributions, the proposal strengthens the governance framework, ensuring that innovative work is not discouraged due to lack of upfront funding. This enhances the ecosystem’s ability to support decentralized contributions effectively.

Justification

Polkadot’s governance includes proposals and bounties, but the tip mechanism is underutilized for unsolicited work. The proposal’s alignment with a prior referendum precedent demonstrates its feasibility, directly addressing the incentive gap. Its impact is limited to a single case, but it sets a clear example for future rewards.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

Does the proposal promote interoperability, user retention, or parachain development?

The proposal indirectly promotes interoperability, user retention, and parachain development by rewarding "The Spammening," which showcased Polkadot’s scalability, a foundational element for these areas. High scalability supports seamless parachain interactions and attracts projects, enhancing interoperability and development. It also aids user retention by ensuring a robust network for high-performance applications. However, the proposal’s focus is on rewarding past work, not directly driving these outcomes, making its impact significant but secondary to the stress test’s results.

Justification

Scalability is critical for interoperability and parachain growth, as it enables efficient cross-chain communication and attracts developers. The stress test’s benchmarks enhance Polkadot’s appeal, indirectly supporting retention. However, the proposal’s primary aim is compensation, not direct ecosystem enhancement, warranting a slightly lower score.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 31/40 | Average: 7.75/10 (78%)

■Question 5 of 19

Does the proposal clearly fall within the scope of the chosen origin (Treasury, Tipper, Spender)?

The proposal does not clearly fall within the scope of the chosen origin, SmallSpender (Track 32), as the requested 45,000 USDT exceeds the track’s spending limit of 10,000 DOT when converted. Using an approximate conversion rate of 4 USDT per DOT, 45,000 USDT equates to about 11,250 DOT, surpassing the SmallSpender threshold. The proposal’s intent to reward Amforc for "The Spammening" aligns with treasury spending for ecosystem contributions, but it should have been submitted under a higher track, such as Medium Spender, which allows up to 100,000 DOT. This misalignment indicates a failure to adhere to the governance track’s defined parameters.

Justification

The Polkadot OpenGov origins table specifies that SmallSpender can spend up to 10,000 DOT. The treasury supports non-native assets like USDT, but spending limits are enforced in DOT via conversion rates. The proposal’s amount exceeds this limit, making it non-compliant with the chosen origin, though its purpose fits treasury spending broadly.

Score: 0/10

■Question 6 of 19

Are there previous proposals with comparable content, and if so, what were their outcomes?

Previous proposals with comparable content, involving treasury payouts in non-native assets like USDT or retroactive rewards, exist and have had varied outcomes. For instance, Referendum #1352 approved 45,000 USDT for ecosystem agent activities, setting a precedent for this proposal. Other proposals, such as those for USDT/USDC acquisition, have been submitted, with some approved and others rejected based on community alignment. These cases demonstrate that treasury spends in USDT for rewarding contributions are feasible and have been successful when properly structured, supporting the proposal’s content comparability.

Justification

The proposal references Referendum #1352, which was approved, confirming a precedent for similar USDT rewards. Treasury documentation and guides indicate non-native asset spends are supported via AssetHub, with historical proposals showing mixed outcomes depending on merit and governance compliance. This establishes strong comparability.

Score: 10/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully, as the proposal seeks to reward Amforc for "The Spammening," a project that enhanced Polkadot’s scalability with 128,184 TPS on Kusama, aligning with the treasury’s purpose of supporting ecosystem growth. The use of the tip mechanism for retroactive rewards is legitimate and encourages innovation. While the incorrect track selection (SmallSpender) is a procedural error, it does not overburden the system, as it is a single proposal that can be corrected or resubmitted, maintaining governance efficiency.

Justification

Treasury tips are designed to reward completed work, and "The Spammening" delivered verifiable ecosystem benefits. The track error is a minor inefficiency, not a burden, as OpenGov handles multiple referenda concurrently. The proposal’s alignment with governance goals ensures meaningful use.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 19/30 | Average: 6.33/10 (63%)

■Question 8 of 19

Is the requested amount proportionate to the potential or demonstrated benefit?

The requested 45,000 USDT is proportionate to the demonstrated benefit of "The Spammening," which achieved 128,184 transactions per second on Kusama, significantly enhancing Polkadot’s scalability credentials. This milestone strengthens the network’s appeal to developers, supporting adoption and competitiveness. The amount aligns with a prior 45,000 USDT tip approved for comparable ecosystem contributions, ensuring fairness for Amforc’s extensive efforts in project structuring and execution. While substantial, the reward reflects the stress test’s impact on Polkadot’s reputation and growth potential, justifying the expenditure relative to the treasury’s resources.

Justification

The stress test’s results provide measurable evidence of enhanced network capability, a critical factor for Polkadot’s market position. The precedent set by Referendum #1352 validates the amount, and the use of USDT ensures stability against DOT volatility. The lack of detailed cost breakdowns slightly limits transparency but does not undermine proportionality.

Score: 9/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework is reasonable, as the 45,000 USDT matches the amount approved under Referendum #1352 for a similar ecosystem agent tip, reflecting consistency with Polkadot’s governance practices. The use of USDT avoids DOT price fluctuations, ensuring a stable reward. Comparable treasury proposals, including those for non-native assets, show a range of tip amounts, but the precedent for 45,000 USDT is clear. The framework’s alignment with established norms and transparency in referencing prior approvals supports its reasonableness, though a breakdown of efforts could enhance clarity.

Justification

Treasury documentation confirms tips are standard for rewarding completed work, and USDT is supported via AssetHub. The direct reference to Referendum #1352 establishes a governance benchmark, and the stablecoin choice mitigates financial risk. The framework is robust but could benefit from more granular justification.

Score: 9/10

■Question 10 of 19

What specific added value does the Treasury or network gain in return for this expenditure?

The Treasury and network gain significant added value by rewarding Amforc, reinforcing Polkadot’s scalability reputation and incentivizing future unsolicited contributions. "The Spammening" demonstrated high throughput, attracting developers and projects, while the retroactive tip fosters a culture of innovation. This strengthens governance by showcasing the tip mechanism’s effectiveness, encouraging community engagement and ensuring long-term ecosystem vitality. The expenditure enhances Polkadot’s appeal as a scalable blockchain, supporting growth in decentralized applications and user adoption.

Justification

The stress test’s outcomes directly enhance Polkadot’s market position, and studies on retroactive rewards show increased participation in governance. The tip mechanism’s use aligns with treasury goals, delivering indirect but substantial value through contributor motivation and ecosystem resilience. The impact is strong but relies on future behavior.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not discuss cheaper alternatives, but the 45,000 USDT is justified by its alignment with Referendum #1352’s approved tip, reflecting a standard for significant contributions. As a retroactive reward, the focus is on fair compensation rather than cost reduction, prioritizing equity for completed work. The use of USDT ensures stability, and the amount adheres to governance norms. While exploring lower amounts could enhance cost-efficiency, the established precedent supports the chosen figure, making the omission of alternatives acceptable.

Justification

Retroactive tips emphasize fairness over minimization, and the precedent validates the amount. Treasury guidelines support such rewards, and the stablecoin choice is prudent. The lack of alternative discussion is a minor flaw, as the amount is consistent with prior approvals, but it limits cost optimization.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 33/40 | Average: 8.25/10 (83%)

■Question 12 of 19

Is it clearly communicated how and for what purposes funds will be used—including KPIs, milestones, metrics?

The proposal clearly communicates that the 45,000 USDT will reward Amforc for their contributions to "The Spammening," detailing tasks like project structuring, fee mechanism research, and test execution. The purpose is explicitly stated as compensating for their uncompensated efforts, with past metrics provided, such as achieving 128,184 TPS on Kusama. As a retroactive tip, it lacks future KPIs or milestones, focusing instead on completed work’s impact. The clarity of purpose and inclusion of past performance metrics ensure transparency, though the absence of future-oriented metrics is a minor limitation inherent to the proposal’s nature.

Justification

The proposal lists specific tasks and references TPS benchmarks, providing evidence of the work’s value. Treasury guidelines for tips emphasize documenting completed work, which is met here. The lack of future KPIs is standard for retroactive rewards, but past metrics sufficiently support the fund’s purpose.

Score: 8/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The budget is clearly specified as 45,000 USDT, justified by alignment with Referendum #1352’s approved tip. Work packages are well-defined, detailing Amforc’s tasks, including script development, stakeholder coordination, and test runs with 18 RPC nodes. Timelines are not provided, as the work is completed, which is acceptable for a retroactive tip. The proposal mentions phases of the project but omits specific dates. The clear budget and detailed work packages ensure transparency, with the absence of timelines being a minor gap given the context of a completed project.

Justification

Treasury norms for tips require clear budgets and work descriptions, which the proposal fulfills. The omission of timelines is less critical for retroactive rewards, as the focus is on past contributions. The detailed task list enhances traceability, though timeline inclusion could improve clarity.

Score: 8/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal does not provide success criteria for future evaluation, as it is a retroactive tip for completed work. Instead, it offers clear evidence of past success, with "The Spammening" achieving 128,184 TPS, verifiable through referenced metrics. These past criteria demonstrate the work’s impact, ensuring the reward’s justification is measurable. The lack of future criteria is consistent with the proposal’s purpose, as no ongoing work is funded. The inclusion of past performance metrics supports evidence-based evaluation of the completed project’s value.

Justification

For retroactive tips, success is evaluated based on completed outcomes, which the proposal addresses with TPS data and external references. Treasury guidelines prioritize evidence of impact, met here. Future criteria are irrelevant, but past metrics ensure accountability.

Score: 8/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal provides extensive documentation, including X posts, a YouTube recap, and Subscan charts, verifying "The Spammening"’s outcomes. No future reporting is planned, as the work is complete, and the reward is a one-time payment. On-chain transparency via Polkadot’s treasury ensures the spend is traceable, with details publicly accessible. The robust existing documentation and inherent blockchain transparency meet traceability requirements, though the lack of explicit future reporting plans is a minor limitation, typical for tips.

Justification

Treasury spends are recorded on-chain, and the proposal’s references provide verifiable evidence. Guidelines for tips focus on documenting past work, which is fulfilled. Future reporting is unnecessary for retroactive rewards, but a statement on transparency could enhance confidence.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

Have the proposers or involved organizations made verifiable, traceable contributions to the ecosystem?

Amforc has made verifiable and traceable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem by operating validators for Polkadot and Kusama since their early stages, supporting network security and decentralization. Their pivotal role in "The Spammening" stress test, which achieved 128,184 transactions per second on Kusama, further demonstrates their impact, enhancing Polkadot’s scalability reputation. These contributions are traceable through on-chain validator data and public documentation, including X posts and Subscan charts. While their focus is primarily on staking and a single high-profile project, their contributions are significant and well-documented.

Justification

Validator performance is verifiable via blockchain explorers, and "The Spammening"’s outcomes are supported by external references. Amforc’s website details their staking services, reinforcing their ecosystem role. Their contributions are impactful but somewhat specialized, warranting a high but not maximum score.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Amforc has successfully implemented validator operations for Polkadot and Kusama, maintaining reliable staking infrastructure with no reported issues, ensuring network stability. They also led "The Spammening," a stress test that demonstrated Polkadot’s scalability by achieving 128,184 TPS, a significant milestone that bolstered the ecosystem’s appeal. These projects highlight Amforc’s technical and organizational expertise, with outcomes verified through public records. While their project portfolio is focused on staking and one major stress test, both have been executed effectively, contributing to Polkadot’s growth.

Justification

The validator operations are ongoing and documented on Amforc’s website, while "The Spammening"’s success is evidenced by TPS benchmarks. The limited number of projects slightly tempers the score, but their impact is substantial, aligning with ecosystem goals.

Score: 9/10

■Question 18 of 19

Are there publicly accessible references (e.g., code repositories, publications) or community feedback supporting the proposers’ credibility?

Amforc’s credibility is supported by publicly accessible references, including their website detailing staking services and validator operations. For "The Spammening," references include X posts, a YouTube recap, and Subscan charts, verifying the project’s outcomes. On-chain data confirms their validator reliability. While no code repositories are provided, their operational focus on staking and stress testing does not necessitate open-source code. Community feedback from prior referenda, such as Polkadot #1169, shows no negative reports, indicating acceptance of Amforc’s contributions. The references are robust but limited to specific projects.

Justification

The proposal’s documentation and Amforc’s website provide transparent evidence. On-chain validator data ensures traceability. The lack of code repositories is not critical for their role, but a broader range of references could enhance credibility further.

Score: 9/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Amforc has already delivered the promised outcomes, as the proposal is a retroactive tip for "The Spammening," which achieved 128,184 TPS and identified network issues. Their ongoing validator operations, with no reported downtime or slashing, further demonstrate their technical capability. The completed nature of the work eliminates delivery risk, and their documented contributions confirm their ability to execute complex projects. Amforc’s proven track record in both staking and the stress test ensures they have met the proposal’s objectives fully.

Justification

The successful execution of "The Spammening" and reliable validator operations provide concrete evidence of Amforc’s capability. As a retroactive reward, no future deliverables are required, making their past performance sufficient for a maximum score.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

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