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 operating cost for the research organization Polkadot Ecology Research Institute for 2025/4-2026/3

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 209.520 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue
The proposers aim to secure funding from the Polkadot Treasury to cover the operational expenses of the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute for the period from April 2025 to March 2026, enabling them to continue producing high-quality research content, supporting ecosystem projects, and engaging with the community.

Ecosystem Impact
This proposal is relevant to the Polkadot ecosystem as it supports the creation of accessible content, community building, and project tracking, which are essential for increasing adoption, fostering innovation, and enhancing Polkadot's global influence, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

Proposed Action
The institute requests approximately USD 209,520.00 (57,719 DOT) for personnel expenses to produce specified deliverables including reports, articles, videos, and event participations, with no repayment obligations but commitments to deliver the outlined outputs.

Expected Outcomes
The intended outcomes include increased understanding and adoption of Polkadot in the Chinese market, enhanced global reach through translated content, up-to-date tracking of ecosystem projects, strengthened community engagement, and strategic insights for Polkadot's development, all contributing to the ecosystem's growth and competitiveness.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal from the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute significantly contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development and adoption by producing extensive educational content and fostering community engagement, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. With a track record of over 63 million content views and support for more than 130 projects, the institute’s planned deliverables, including 36 analysis reports, 42 in-depth articles, and 12 events, aim to enhance user understanding and ecosystem participation. Strategic reports, recognized by the Web3 Foundation, provide actionable insights that bolster Polkadot’s competitive positioning. By targeting the Chinese market and expanding global outreach, the proposal strengthens Polkadot’s relevance and resilience in a dynamic blockchain landscape.

Justification

The institute’s past performance, with substantial content reach and project support, demonstrates measurable impact on adoption and development. Its strategic reports address ecosystem challenges, contributing to resilience. The focus on the Chinese market taps into a key growth region, enhancing relevance. Planned deliverables ensure continued engagement, supporting long-term goals. However, direct metrics for resilience are less explicit, slightly tempering the score.

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 delivers sustainable value by creating a lasting repository of educational content and fostering a knowledgeable Polkadot community, particularly in China, which can drive ongoing ecosystem growth. The institute’s content, with over 63 million views historically, remains accessible post-funding, educating future users and developers. Community-building efforts, including Telegram groups with 2,100 core users and event participation, establish enduring networks that encourage collaboration. Strategic insights from reports, such as the 2025 development strategy, may shape Polkadot’s governance and competitiveness, ensuring long-term benefits beyond the 12-month funding period.

Justification

The content repository and community networks are durable assets that continue to benefit Polkadot after funding ends. Historical success in content dissemination and project support suggests sustained impact. Strategic reports provide forward-looking guidance, enhancing long-term ecosystem health. However, the proposal’s reliance on treasury funding raises minor concerns about self-sustainability, slightly limiting the score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal addresses structural weaknesses in Polkadot’s ecosystem, such as usability challenges and insufficient ecosystem support, through strategic analysis and educational content. The institute’s 2025 strategic report identifies issues like complex interfaces and operational shortcomings, offering recommendations to improve user experience and ecosystem efficiency. By producing accessible content, including knowledge graphs and simplified technical explanations, the institute helps users navigate Polkadot’s complexities, indirectly enhancing usability. These efforts align with addressing gaps in community education and ecosystem transparency, critical for Polkadot’s growth.

Justification

The strategic report explicitly tackles known weaknesses, supported by Web3 Foundation recognition, indicating relevance. Educational content mitigates usability barriers, a documented issue in Polkadot. However, the proposal’s focus is more on analysis and education than direct technical solutions, which limits its depth in fully resolving structural issues, warranting a slightly lower score.

Score: 7/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal indirectly supports interoperability and user retention through content creation and community engagement but does not explicitly promote parachain development. Tracking and reporting on 12 high-quality projects may highlight interoperability-focused initiatives, fostering ecosystem collaboration. Daily reports and community activities, reaching over 8,000 users across 15 communities, enhance engagement, potentially aiding retention. However, the proposal lacks specific initiatives targeting parachain development or technical interoperability enhancements, focusing instead on education and market expansion, which limits its direct impact in these areas.

Justification

The proposal’s project tracking and community efforts could indirectly benefit interoperability and retention by increasing awareness and engagement. However, the absence of explicit focus on parachain development or technical interoperability solutions reduces its effectiveness in these areas. The primary emphasis on content and events aligns more with education than technical advancement, justifying a lower score.

Score: 3/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 26/40 | Average: 6.50/10 (65%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal from the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute clearly falls within the scope of the MediumSpender origin, as it requests approximately 57,719 DOT to fund operational expenses for research, content creation, and community engagement from April 2025 to March 2026. This amount is well below the MediumSpender track’s limit of 100,000 DOT, aligning with the origin’s purpose of supporting substantial treasury-funded initiatives. The proposal’s focus on enhancing Polkadot’s ecosystem through education, project support, and market expansion in the Asia-Pacific region matches the intended use of spender tracks for recurrent services and community development.

Justification

The requested 57,719 DOT fits within the MediumSpender’s financial threshold, and the proposal’s objectives align with treasury goals of fostering ecosystem growth, as outlined in Polkadot’s governance documentation. The detailed budget for personnel costs and planned deliverables, such as reports and events, further supports its appropriateness for this origin. No discrepancies were found between the proposal’s scope and the MediumSpender track’s parameters.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Previous proposals with comparable content exist, as the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute has submitted eight prior treasury applications for operational funding, covering periods such as 2021/9-2022/2, 2022/3-2022/8, and 2023/10-2024/3. These proposals, focusing on similar activities like content creation and community support, were all approved and successfully executed, as evidenced by their “Executed” status on governance platforms. This consistent approval reflects the institute’s established role in delivering value to the Polkadot ecosystem, with outcomes including over 63 million content views and support for 130 projects.

Justification

Historical records confirm the existence of eight similar proposals, each approved and executed, indicating strong governance support for the institute’s work. The outcomes, detailed in development reports, demonstrate tangible contributions, such as extensive content production and event participation, justifying the high score. No evidence suggests unsuccessful prior proposals, reinforcing the proposal’s contextual appropriateness.

Score: 9/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully by this proposal, as it leverages the MediumSpender track to fund critical ecosystem activities, including research, education, and community engagement, which align with Polkadot’s treasury objectives. The institute’s proven track record, with over 288 reports and 92 events, ensures the proposal adds value rather than straining the system. The ninth application in a series of successful proposals indicates a strategic use of governance to sustain impactful work, particularly in the Chinese market, without overwhelming the process.

Justification

The proposal’s alignment with treasury goals and its detailed plan, including 36 reports and 12 events, demonstrate meaningful engagement with the governance system. The institute’s history of delivering on commitments, as shown in prior reports, suggests no burden. The frequency of applications is justified by consistent outcomes, and the MediumSpender track is appropriately utilized, warranting a top score.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 28/30 | Average: 9.33/10 (93%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested USD 209,520 is proportionate to the demonstrated and potential benefits, given the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute’s track record of generating over 63 million content views and supporting more than 130 projects. The proposal outlines extensive deliverables, including 36 analysis reports, 42 in-depth articles, and 12 events, which are likely to enhance user adoption and ecosystem engagement, particularly in the Chinese market. The budget, primarily for personnel costs, aligns with the institute’s history of impactful contributions, such as strategic reports recognized by the Web3 Foundation, ensuring the amount matches the expected value.

Justification

Historical metrics like 63 million views and project support validate the institute’s impact, while planned activities promise continued growth. Salaries, ranging from USD 1,905 to USD 3,968 monthly, are reasonable for specialized roles in China, where research scientists earn around USD 55,766 annually. The focus on personnel without overhead suggests efficiency, though the scale of benefits slightly tempers the score due to indirect technical contributions.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework of USD 209,520 appears reasonable, though direct comparisons with similar proposals are limited. The Polkadot Treasury has approved eight prior funding requests from the institute for similar activities, suggesting community acceptance of their cost structure. The detailed breakdown for six staff roles, with monthly costs of USD 17,460, aligns with industry norms for blockchain research and community management in China, fitting within the MediumSpender track’s 100,000 DOT limit.

Justification

The consistent approval of prior proposals indicates the budget is within acceptable norms. Salaries align with averages, such as USD 45,768 for blockchain developers in China. However, the lack of specific funding details for comparable proposals slightly limits the ability to confirm exact reasonableness, resulting in a lower score despite the transparent framework.

Score: 6/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury gains significant added value through increased user education, enhanced community engagement, and strategic insights that drive Polkadot’s growth. The institute’s content simplifies technical concepts, boosting adoption in China, while daily reports and project tracking ensure transparency for over 8,000 community members. Events and translated content expand global reach, and strategic reports, endorsed by ecosystem stakeholders, guide Polkadot’s development, delivering clear benefits for the network’s visibility and competitiveness.

Justification

The proposal’s deliverables directly support ecosystem goals, with past achievements like 92 events and 2,100 Telegram users demonstrating tangible impact. Strategic contributions, recognized by Parity and Moonbeam, add long-term value, justifying a high score for clear, multifaceted benefits to the Treasury and network.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly address cheaper alternatives, likely due to the institute’s unique position as a leading Polkadot research entity in Asia. Its extensive output, including 288 reports and support for 130 projects, suggests few competitors can match its impact. The budget’s focus on essential personnel costs, with self-funded travel expenses, indicates efficient resource use, though exploring other options could have strengthened the proposal.

Justification

The institute’s specialized role and proven results reduce the need for alternatives, but the absence of any discussion on cost-saving measures limits fulfillment. Efficiency in budgeting and the lack of significant competitors partially justify the approach, resulting in a moderate score for partial consideration of alternatives.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 25/40 | Average: 6.25/10 (63%)

■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 USD 209,520 will fund personnel costs for a team of six to produce content, engage communities, and support Polkadot’s ecosystem from April 2025 to March 2026. It details specific outputs, such as 36 analysis reports, 42 in-depth articles, and 240 daily posters, which serve as milestones and metrics. However, while these quantify deliverables, the proposal lacks explicit key performance indicators for broader impacts like user adoption or engagement growth, slightly reducing clarity on evaluating overall effectiveness.

Justification

The detailed budget allocation and output targets provide transparency on fund usage, with measurable deliverables acting as milestones. Past metrics, like 63 million content views, imply similar tracking, but the absence of specific impact KPIs limits the ability to fully assess ecosystem-wide benefits, justifying a high but not maximum score.

Score: 9/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal meticulously specifies a USD 209,520 budget, with USD 17,460 monthly costs for six roles, including researchers at USD 3,968 each and a designer at USD 1,905. It covers a 12-month timeline from April 2025 to March 2026, with work packages for content creation, events, and community building, detailing tasks like producing 48 videos and participating in 12 events. This structured breakdown ensures clarity in financial and operational planning.

Justification

The comprehensive budget, precise timeline, and categorized work packages leave no ambiguity, aligning with the proposal’s objectives. Monthly task allocations and role-specific costs enhance transparency, fully meeting the criteria for clear specification and warranting a top score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Success criteria are primarily defined through output metrics, such as producing 36 reports, 42 articles, and 12 events, which provide clear benchmarks for task completion. The proposal implies success through increased Polkadot adoption and engagement, referencing past achievements like 4,700 X followers. However, it lacks specific quantitative targets for these broader impacts, which could complicate evaluating ecosystem-wide benefits beyond deliverables.

Justification

The output-focused criteria are robust, ensuring evaluability of deliverables, and past metrics provide context. However, the absence of explicit impact targets, such as percentage increases in community size, slightly weakens the ability to assess overall success, resulting in a strong but not perfect score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal strongly commits to documentation and reporting, continuing the institute’s practice of public updates via platforms like Google Docs and Medium, as seen in prior reports for 2024/4-2024/9. It plans to share daily ecosystem reports with 10 communities and post 240 X updates, ensuring transparent progress tracking. This approach allows the community to monitor outcomes effectively throughout the funding period.

Justification

The institute’s history of detailed, accessible reports and planned public updates demonstrate a robust reporting framework. The commitment to frequent community and social media updates ensures traceability, fully meeting the criteria for planned documentation and justifying a maximum score.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

The Polkadot Ecology Research Institute has made verifiable and traceable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem, producing nearly 300 original articles and reports with over 63 million views since 2019. They have supported over 130 projects, organized 92 events reaching 50,000 people, and built communities with 2,100 Telegram users. Their daily reports engage over 8,000 community members, and their work has been recognized by the Web3 Foundation, ensuring contributions are well-documented and impactful.

Justification

The institute’s contributions are quantifiable through metrics like content views and event participation, with public documentation on platforms like WeChat and Medium. Endorsements from ecosystem stakeholders and eight prior treasury approvals confirm traceability and impact, fully meeting the criteria for verifiable contributions.

Score: 10/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The institute has successfully implemented numerous projects, including five annual Polkadot reports from 2020 to 2024, the Polkadot Knowledge Graph with 180 graphs, and daily ecosystem reports shared across 15 communities. They have organized or participated in 92 events, including Polkadot Decoded and hackathons since 2021, and provided support to over 130 ecosystem projects, all documented in detailed feedback reports.

Justification

The annual reports, knowledge graphs, and events are well-documented, with accessible outputs and significant community reach. Feedback reports and endorsements from projects like Moonbeam confirm successful execution, demonstrating a robust history of project implementation, warranting a top score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

The institute’s credibility is supported by publicly accessible references, including annual reports on WeChat, strategic articles on Medium read nearly 20,000 times, and over 6,000 X posts. Feedback from projects like SubWallet, Phala Network, and Bifrost praises their insightful content and community support. Recognition from the Web3 Foundation and awards like the 2021 Spark Award further validate their standing.

Justification

The availability of reports, articles, and social media updates, combined with endorsements from key ecosystem players, provides strong evidence of credibility. The absence of code repositories is irrelevant given the non-technical focus, fully satisfying the criteria with comprehensive references and feedback.

Score: 10/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The institute’s team, with nine years of cryptocurrency experience and six years in Polkadot, is highly capable of delivering the proposed outcomes, including 36 reports and 12 events. Having successfully executed eight treasury-funded projects, their six-member team, including researchers and community managers, aligns with past operations, ensuring they can meet commitments based on proven expertise.

Justification

The team’s extensive experience, documented success in prior projects, and endorsements from ecosystem stakeholders confirm their capability. The proposed deliverables are consistent with past outputs, and the structured team composition supports reliable execution, fully meeting the criteria for delivery capacity.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

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