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

Suprime - Fully Decentralized Accelerator

Track: 34 | Origin: BigSpender | Amount: 210.000 DOT

Summary of the proposal

Core Problem

The applicants aim to address the lack of transparency and trust in Web3 acceleration by creating a fully decentralized platform where all processes are on-chain and verifiable.

Impact on the Ecosystem

The integration of Suprime into Polkadot could attract more projects to the network and strengthen its reputation for transparency and decentralization in the Web3 space.

Proposed Action

The applicants are seeking additional funding to build strategic partnerships, complete the platform's functionalities, integrate it into Polkadot, and accelerate Suprime itself on the platform.

Expected Outcomes

The development of a transparent, decentralized acceleration platform that fosters trustless interactions between stakeholders, potentially increases project integration, and drives innovation within the Polkadot ecosystem.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The Suprime proposal aims to establish a decentralized Web3 acceleration platform on Polkadot, which could enhance long-term development and adoption by attracting new projects and developers. By providing a transparent, trustless environment for funding and project management, it aligns with Polkadot’s decentralized ethos, potentially increasing its relevance in the Web3 ecosystem. The platform’s ability to support startups could drive ecosystem growth, but the proposal lacks specific metrics or timelines to quantify this impact. The intended integration with Polkadot suggests a commitment to leveraging its infrastructure, which may bolster resilience by diversifying use cases. However, without detailed implementation plans, the measurable contribution remains uncertain.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on fostering project development through a decentralized platform directly supports Polkadot’s goals of scalability and innovation. The potential to attract more developers and projects could enhance adoption and relevance, but the absence of concrete metrics or a clear roadmap limits the ability to assess the extent of this contribution. The alignment with Polkadot’s infrastructure suggests some resilience benefits, yet the lack of specificity tempers the evaluation.

Score: 5/10

■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?

Suprime’s revenue model, based on fees from fundraising, services, and DAO investments, positions it to operate sustainably, continuously supporting new projects on Polkadot beyond the initial funding phase. This ongoing facilitation of transparent project acceleration could drive long-term innovation and ecosystem growth. By establishing a self-sustaining platform, Suprime ensures that Polkadot benefits from a steady influx of projects, enhancing its vibrancy. The proposal’s emphasis on strategic partnerships with funds and accelerators further suggests a lasting network of support for Polkadot-based initiatives. However, the exact scale of this value depends on successful deployment and adoption, which is not fully detailed.

Justification

The revenue model’s design for long-term operation, coupled with the platform’s role in supporting continuous project development, indicates strong potential for sustainable value. The focus on partnerships enhances this by embedding Suprime within Polkadot’s ecosystem. However, the lack of specific projections or adoption strategies reduces certainty about the extent of this value

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

Suprime addresses the broader Web3 issue of opaque funding platforms by offering a transparent, on-chain acceleration process, which could indirectly strengthen Polkadot’s ecosystem integrity. While not explicitly targeting a specific Polkadot structural weakness, the platform’s trustless model may mitigate risks associated with centralized or unverified funding mechanisms, a common concern in decentralized networks. This could enhance trust among Polkadot’s stakeholders, but the proposal does not identify a particular ecosystem flaw, such as governance or parachain onboarding inefficiencies. The general applicability of the solution limits its focus on Polkadot-specific structural improvements.

Justification

The proposal’s emphasis on transparency tackles a recognized Web3 challenge, potentially benefiting Polkadot by fostering trust. However, without evidence of a targeted Polkadot-specific weakness, such as scalability bottlenecks or governance issues, the impact on structural improvements is less direct. The general nature of the addressed problem results in a moderate evaluation.

Score: 5/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

Suprime is likely to promote parachain development by enabling startups to build on Polkadot’s infrastructure, fostering a diverse project ecosystem. The platform’s transparent funding model could enhance user retention by creating a trustworthy environment that encourages developers and investors to remain active in Polkadot. While interoperability is not explicitly addressed, Polkadot’s cross-chain architecture suggests that projects supported by Suprime could leverage this feature, indirectly promoting interoperability. The proposal’s focus on startup acceleration implies a broad impact on ecosystem growth, but the lack of specific details on interoperability mechanisms or retention strategies introduces some uncertainty.

Justification

The platform’s role in supporting Polkadot-based projects directly contributes to parachain development and likely aids user retention through a vibrant ecosystem. The potential for interoperability exists due to Polkadot’s design, but the proposal’s silence on this aspect limits certainty. The inferred benefits from similar acceleration platforms support a positive evaluation, though specificity would strengthen the case.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 23/40 | Average: 5.75/10 (57%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The Suprime proposal falls within the scope of the BigSpender origin, which is designed for large treasury spending proposals up to 1,000,000 DOT. It requests funding to develop a decentralized Web3 acceleration platform, establish strategic partnerships, and integrate with Polkadot, aligning with treasury spending goals to foster ecosystem growth. The proposal’s placement in Track 34, BigSpender, matches its intent for significant expenditure, as it involves platform development and ecosystem enhancement.

Justification

The BigSpender origin, as defined in Polkadot’s OpenGov documentation, supports large-scale treasury expenditures for projects benefiting the network. Suprime’s focus on ecosystem development through a transparent platform fits this purpose. The lack of a precise funding figure does not detract from its alignment with BigSpender’s scope, as the project’s scale implies a significant spend.

Score: 8/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

No previous Polkadot governance proposals directly comparable to Suprime’s decentralized Web3 acceleration platform were identified. While treasury proposals have funded infrastructure, education, and community initiatives, none specifically address a transparent, on-chain acceleration platform. For example, proposals like the Polkadot Blockchain Academy funding focused on education, differing in scope. The absence of similar proposals means outcomes cannot be referenced, but Suprime’s unique approach suggests it introduces a novel concept to the ecosystem.

Justification

A review of Polkadot’s treasury proposals on platforms like Polkassembly revealed no projects matching Suprime’s focus on decentralized acceleration. Proposals for bounties or technical upgrades exist, but their objectives diverge. This uniqueness prevents outcome comparisons, resulting in a low evaluation for this criterion, as the question requires evidence of comparable content.

Score: 0/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The Suprime proposal uses Polkadot’s governance system meaningfully, presenting a detailed plan to enhance the ecosystem through a decentralized platform. It includes team credentials, technical details, and a revenue model, indicating a serious effort to contribute to Polkadot’s growth. There is no evidence of frivolous intent or system abuse, such as spamming or unreasonable requests. The proposal’s alignment with treasury goals and its thorough documentation suggest it respects the governance process without overburdening it.

Justification

The proposal’s comprehensive nature, covering technical innovation and ecosystem benefits, shows a legitimate use of the governance system. Polkadot’s OpenGov is designed to handle such proposals, and Suprime’s submission adheres to these expectations.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 16/30 | Average: 5.33/10 (53%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The Suprime proposal’s request for 210,000 DOT, approximately $777,000 at $3.70 per DOT, appears proportionate to its potential to enhance Polkadot’s ecosystem by attracting projects through a decentralized Web3 acceleration platform. The platform aims to foster transparent project funding, potentially increasing developer activity and network adoption. The team’s prior success with Bright Union demonstrates their ability to deliver impactful blockchain solutions. However, the proposal lacks specific metrics to quantify benefits, such as the number of projects expected or economic impact, introducing uncertainty. The funding aligns with costs for complex platform development, making it reasonable for the anticipated ecosystem growth.

Justification

The $777,000 request is consistent with costs for developing sophisticated blockchain platforms, and the potential to drive Polkadot’s growth justifies the investment. The team’s track record supports their capability, but the absence of clear benefit projections slightly lowers the evaluation, as stakeholders may need more precise impact estimates.

Score: 6/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Suprime’s budget of 210,000 DOT is reasonable when compared to other Polkadot treasury proposals, such as those for developer programs at 138,710 DOT or security audits at 97,000 DOT. The funding supports platform development, audits, and partnerships, aligning with the complexity of a decentralized acceleration platform. While no directly comparable proposals exist, the budget fits within the range of large-scale ecosystem projects. The team’s prior $85,000 MVP investment suggests cost awareness, but a detailed breakdown of the 210,000 DOT allocation would strengthen the case for reasonableness.

Justification

The budget aligns with other significant Polkadot treasury expenditures for ecosystem development, and the project’s scope justifies the amount. The lack of identical comparators and a specific budget breakdown limits precision, but the funding scale is consistent with Polkadot’s norms for impactful initiatives.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Polkadot Treasury and network gain a decentralized acceleration platform that enhances transparency in project funding, likely attracting startups and developers to build on Polkadot. This could drive innovation, increase parachain activity, and strengthen Polkadot’s reputation in Web3. The platform’s sustainable revenue model, based on fees and DAO investments, ensures ongoing project support without further treasury funding. The team’s experience with Bright Union suggests reliable delivery, adding long-term value through ecosystem growth and enhanced trust among stakeholders.

Justification

The platform’s potential to foster project development and its alignment with Polkadot’s decentralization goals offer clear value. The sustainable model and team credibility enhance the return on investment. The evaluation is high but not maximal due to the lack of specific metrics for expected project influx.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The Suprime proposal does not indicate whether cheaper alternatives, such as leveraging existing launchpads or open-source tools, were considered. The emphasis on a custom platform with unique features like on-chain governance suggests the team prioritized their vision of transparency. While this may justify the approach, the absence of discussion on cost-saving options, like partnering with platforms such as Polkastarter, leaves uncertainty about whether more economical paths were explored. The $777,000 request reflects the project’s complexity, but stakeholders may expect clarity on alternatives.

Justification

The lack of mention of cheaper alternatives suggests a focus on a tailored solution, which may be necessary for Suprime’s goals. However, without evidence of exploring other options, the evaluation is moderate, as cost efficiency could be better demonstrated with alternative considerations.

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 Suprime proposal specifies that the 210,000 DOT will fund strategic partnerships, platform feature completion, Polkadot integration, and self-acceleration, but lacks a detailed allocation breakdown. No specific KPIs, milestones, or metrics are provided to track progress, such as the number of partnerships or integration timelines. The whitepaper details fund usage for platform projects, like a $30,000 minimum for services, but this does not apply to Suprime’s development. The absence of measurable targets hinders evidence-based tracking, despite the general intent to enhance Polkadot’s ecosystem.

Justification

The proposal outlines broad purposes but fails to provide a granular budget or specific performance indicators, falling short of Polkadot’s transparency standards. The whitepaper’s focus on platform operations does not clarify treasury fund usage, resulting in limited clarity for stakeholders.

Score: 3/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal does not specify budgets, timelines, or work packages for the 210,000 DOT. It mentions goals like partnerships and Polkadot integration but lacks details on cost distribution, task breakdowns, or completion schedules. The whitepaper’s roadmap, focusing on platform operations like deploying contracts, does not address the funded development process. This omission obscures how resources will be utilized, making it difficult for stakeholders to monitor progress or assess efficiency against Polkadot’s governance expectations.

Justification

The lack of detailed budgets, timelines, or work packages significantly reduces transparency, as Polkadot’s guidelines emphasize itemized tasks for tracking. The proposal’s general objectives without structured plans limit stakeholder oversight, warranting a low evaluation.

Score: 2/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

No success criteria are defined for evaluating the 210,000 DOT expenditure’s impact. The whitepaper outlines project evaluation mechanisms, like DAO voting on a 1-10 scale, but these apply to platform users, not Suprime’s development. The proposal does not specify outcomes, such as platform deployment dates or project onboarding targets, leaving stakeholders without a framework to assess whether the funding achieves its objectives, contrary to Polkadot’s emphasis on clear evaluation metrics.

Justification

The absence of success criteria for Suprime’s development prevents effective evaluation, undermining accountability. The platform’s project-focused criteria do not extend to treasury funds, resulting in a near-total lack of traceability for the proposed expenditure.

Score: 1/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not outline plans for documenting or reporting the use of the 210,000 DOT. While Suprime’s platform emphasizes on-chain transparency for projects, with features like live leaderboards and voting, this does not cover the treasury-funded development phase. No commitment to regular updates or financial reporting is mentioned, limiting stakeholder ability to track fund usage. Polkadot’s governance encourages community explanations, but Suprime’s silence on this aspect reduces accountability.

Justification

The lack of explicit documentation or reporting plans for treasury funds fails to meet Polkadot’s transparency standards. The platform’s operational transparency does not apply to the proposal’s funding, leading to a complete lack of planned oversight mechanisms.

Score: 0/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 6/40 | Average: 1.50/10 (15%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The proposers, Kiril Ivanov and Michiel Slootweg, have made verifiable contributions to the blockchain ecosystem through their work on LoyalGarden and Bright Union. Kiril, as CTO of LoyalGarden, developed a blockchain-based payment system for festivals in 2018, and both co-founded Bright Union, a DeFi insurance aggregator operational since 2021. Their 2017 Dutch Blockchain Hackathon win further demonstrates technical contributions. These projects, primarily in the broader blockchain space, showcase their engagement, though direct Polkadot-specific contributions are not evident.

Justification

Verifiable contributions via LoyalGarden and Bright Union, supported by media and repositories, confirm ecosystem engagement. The hackathon win adds credibility, but the lack of Polkadot-specific work lowers the evaluation, as the question focuses on ecosystem contributions broadly.

Score: 6/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The proposers have successfully implemented LoyalGarden, a 2018 blockchain payment system tested at festivals, and Bright Union, a DeFi insurance platform launched in 2021, handling over $70 million across multiple chains. They also won the 2017 Dutch Blockchain Hackathon with a functional web app and claim a 2019 Blockchain for Humanity award for a charity AMM, though the latter lacks public verification. These projects highlight their ability to deliver innovative blockchain solutions.

Justification

LoyalGarden and Bright Union are well-documented successes, with Bright Union showing sustained impact. The hackathon win is verified, but the unverified 2019 award reduces the evaluation, as does the absence of Polkadot-specific projects.

Score: 6/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Public references include a GitHub repository from the 2017 Dutch Blockchain Hackathon and Bright Union’s SDK repository, showcasing technical expertise. Media coverage from Cointelegraph and NewsBTC highlights Bright Union’s DeFi impact, with Kiril quoted in Tech in Asia. Community feedback is limited, with review platforms like DecentReviews showing no user reviews for Bright Union, and a YouTube review lacking engagement, slightly constraining evidence of broader validation.

Justification

Strong references via repositories and media support credibility, but scarce community feedback limits the evaluation. The proposers’ technical contributions are clear, yet the lack of robust community validation impacts the completeness of credibility evidence.

Score: 6/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team, with Kiril’s 22 years of development experience and Michiel’s 25 years in startups, appears capable of delivering Suprime’s platform, including partnerships and Polkadot integration. Their success with Bright Union and LoyalGarden, plus Suprime’s MVP on Sepolia, demonstrates technical and operational competence. While specific Polkadot expertise is not detailed, their multi-chain experience suggests adaptability to deliver the proposed decentralized acceleration platform.

Justification

The team’s proven track record and MVP development strongly support their capability. The lack of explicit Polkadot experience introduces minor uncertainty, but their technical skills and prior successes justify a high evaluation for delivering the promised outcomes.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 5

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