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

Faze x Vitality - Unifying ecosystem efforts through Esport - Metaproposal

Track: 11 | Origin: Treasurer | Amount: 1.506.865 DOT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The specific aim of the proposer(s) is to address the inefficient use of funds for brand promotion, poor lead management, and the complexity of interacting with OpenGov for outsiders in the Polkadot ecosystem.

Ecosystem Impact

This topic is relevant to the Polkadot ecosystem because it aims to transform Polkadot’s external engagement and brand visibility by leveraging the global reach of esports, targeting a massive audience of 3.4 billion players and 532 million esports fans worldwide, particularly Generation Z and digital natives, who are highly receptive to Web3 technologies.

Proposed Action

The proposer’s approach includes establishing an Esports Committee, appointing key roles such as B2B and B2C Account Managers, developing tools and strategies for user acquisition and engagement, forming partnerships with FaZe and Vitality for global visibility, and providing legal and administrative support. The total funding request is $DOT 1,506,865 (approximately $4.9 million USD), with specific allocations for sponsorships, ecosystem tools, administrative costs, commissions, and buffers.

Expected Outcomes

The intended outcomes include increased visibility and adoption of Polkadot among global esports fans and businesses, improved efficiency in external engagement through professionalized tools and strategic coordination, cultural integration of Polkadot’s identity into the esports community, and operational excellence by establishing a precedent for coordinated, outcome-focused governance.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal significantly contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development, adoption, resilience, and relevance by establishing strategic partnerships with esports organizations FaZe and Vitality, creating reusable technical tools, and enhancing governance structures. It targets a global audience of 3.4 billion gamers, leveraging their Web3 affinity to drive adoption, particularly among Generation Z. The development of open-source tools, such as the Dynamic NFT Framework and Account Abstraction Toolkit, supports ongoing technical innovation. The Esport Committee ensures coordinated execution, while Le Nexus’s legal wrapper strengthens operational resilience. These efforts align Polkadot with cultural trends, ensuring sustained relevance in the blockchain space.

Justification

The proposal’s partnerships with FaZe and Vitality provide access to a massive, tech-savvy demographic, fostering adoption. Tools like smart contracts and NFT frameworks enable future dApp development, supporting long-term growth. The governance model, with quarterly KPI reviews, enhances resilience by ensuring accountability. Cultural alignment with esports ensures relevance, as 73% of fans engage digitally, per the proposal’s data. The measurable KPIs and tool reusability provide a framework for sustained impact, though execution risks remain.

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 through reusable open-source tools, a scalable governance model, and lasting brand recognition. Smart contracts, cross-chain migration frameworks, and the Account Abstraction Toolkit will support future dApp deployment and interoperability. The Esport Committee’s framework sets a precedent for coordinated OpenGov proposals, enhancing ecosystem efficiency. Partnerships with FaZe and Vitality embed Polkadot’s identity in esports culture, fostering ongoing user engagement through gamified NFT-based loyalty programs, ensuring long-term community growth and visibility.

Justification

The open-source tools are designed for broad ecosystem use, extending beyond the project’s one-year scope. The governance model, emphasizing collaboration and KPIs, can guide future initiatives, promoting sustainability. Brand integration in esports, a growing industry, ensures prolonged visibility, while loyalty programs encourage sustained user retention. The proposal’s focus on reusable infrastructure and strategic positioning provides enduring benefits, though success depends on tool adoption and partnership outcomes.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal effectively addresses structural weaknesses, including inefficient marketing spend, poor lead management, and OpenGov’s complexity for external stakeholders. It introduces a unified Esport Committee to streamline coordination, develops tools like acquisition funnels and lead management systems to optimize resources, and simplifies onboarding with gamified QR-code and NFT strategies. Le Nexus’s legal wrapper resolves administrative challenges, enabling agents to focus on core tasks, thus enhancing operational efficiency and accessibility.

Justification

The proposal directly tackles identified issues: wasted marketing funds, fragmented efforts, and governance complexity. The committee and tools like the lead management system address coordination and efficiency gaps. Gamified onboarding reduces OpenGov’s perceived complexity, while Le Nexus mitigates legal and administrative burdens. These solutions target root causes, though their effectiveness hinges on implementation quality and adoption by ecosystem agents.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal promotes interoperability and user retention, with indirect support for parachain development. It develops tools like the ERC-6220 standard and cross-chain migration frameworks to enable seamless asset transfers across blockchains. Gamified onboarding, NFT-based loyalty programs, and on-chain reputation systems foster user retention by encouraging continuous engagement. While not directly focused on parachains, tools like smart contracts and Asset Hub enhancements create a robust environment for parachain dApp deployment, indirectly benefiting development.

Justification

Interoperability is advanced through cross-chain tools, aligning with Polkadot’s multi-chain vision. User retention is prioritized via engaging onboarding and rewards, addressing churn risks. Parachain development benefits indirectly from improved infrastructure, though the proposal lacks direct parachain-focused initiatives. The focus on user-centric and interoperable tools ensures ecosystem growth, but the indirect parachain impact slightly limits its scope.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 30/40 | Average: 7.50/10 (75%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal clearly falls within the scope of the Treasurer origin, as it requests $DOT 1,506,865 from the Polkadot treasury to fund an esports initiative with FaZe and Vitality, aimed at enhancing ecosystem growth through marketing, user acquisition, and tool development. Assigned to Track 11, it aligns with the Treasurer’s role in managing treasury spending for strategic projects, adhering to the track’s parameters for funding up to 10M DOT for ecosystem development.

Justification

The Treasurer origin, per Polkadot’s OpenGov documentation, governs treasury spending, and Track 11 supports large-scale funding requests like this one. The proposal’s focus on sponsorships, operational roles, and technical tools directly involves treasury resource allocation, fitting the origin’s purpose. The detailed budget breakdown and commitment to return $450,000 to the treasury reinforce its alignment with treasury management, ensuring governance compliance.

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, such as Referendum #415 for a web documentary, #385 for a memecoin marketing campaign, and #376 for an Unchained sponsorship, focused on marketing and community engagement, and were successfully executed. While these proposals were smaller in scope (ranging from 24,000 to 91,557 DOT), they share the goal of increasing Polkadot’s visibility, suggesting community support for such initiatives, though the esports focus is distinct in scale and ambition.

Justification

Historical data confirms that marketing-focused proposals like #415, #385, and #376 were approved and executed, indicating a precedent for treasury-funded engagement efforts. The current proposal’s larger budget and unique esports angle build on this foundation, maintaining relevance to ecosystem goals. The lack of failed comparable proposals supports its contextual appropriateness, though its scale requires careful scrutiny.

Score: 7/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully, as the proposal consolidates seven sub-proposals into a strategic meta-proposal to enhance Polkadot’s global presence, incorporating accountability measures like quarterly reviews and a $450,000 treasury repayment. Designed for Track 11’s high-budget requests, OpenGov’s multi-track system can handle this proposal without strain, and its comprehensive approach aligns with the system’s purpose of enabling impactful community decisions.

Justification

The proposal’s consolidation reduces governance overhead by avoiding multiple referendums, and its accountability mechanisms demonstrate responsible use. OpenGov’s 15 tracks and parameters, such as Track 11’s 28-day decision period, are built to manage such proposals efficiently. No evidence suggests system overload, and the proposal’s strategic scope leverages governance to address ecosystem needs, enhancing OpenGov’s utility.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 24/30 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested $DOT 1,506,865, approximately USD 4.9 million, appears proportionate to the potential benefits, given the proposal’s aim to reach 3.4 billion gamers and 532 million esports fans, a demographic with 60% familiarity with virtual currencies, to drive user adoption and business engagement. It funds partnerships with FaZe and Vitality, tool development, and operational roles, promising significant visibility and long-term ecosystem growth, though the lack of specific benefit metrics introduces uncertainty.

Justification

The scale of the esports audience and its Web3 affinity justify the investment, supported by industry trends where esports sponsorships are valued in billions. The proposal’s tools, like NFT frameworks, add lasting value, but without detailed KPIs or user acquisition projections, the exact benefit remains unclear, tempering the proportionality assessment. The $4.9 million aligns with the ambition but requires execution to realize full potential.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework is reasonable compared to Polkadot’s recent treasury spending, though larger than similar marketing proposals like Referendum #385 ($91,557 for a memecoin campaign) or #376 ($57,782 for a sponsorship). Representing 2.6% of the $188 million liquid treasury, the $4.9 million meta-proposal, consolidating seven initiatives, aligns with Polkadot’s $87 million 2024 spending trend, but its scale is notable compared to smaller precedents.

Justification

Polkadot’s treasury spending has grown significantly, with $21 million in 2023 and $87 million in 2024, supporting the proposal’s size. The consolidation of multiple initiatives justifies a higher budget than single-purpose proposals. However, its magnitude compared to past referendums requires scrutiny to ensure efficiency, though it fits within the ecosystem’s financial capacity and strategic goals.

Score: 6/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The treasury and network gain enhanced global visibility through partnerships with FaZe and Vitality, targeting millions of tech-savvy users, improved marketing efficiency via unified acquisition funnels and lead management tools, and long-term growth through reusable tools like smart contracts and NFT frameworks. Cultural integration into esports and a scalable governance model further add value, fostering user retention and business development.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on a high-engagement demographic ensures visibility, while tools address inefficiencies in current spending, offering immediate and lasting benefits. The governance model sets a precedent for future initiatives, and cultural alignment enhances brand recognition. The evidence supports significant value, though execution risks and lack of quantified outcomes slightly limit certainty.

Score: 6/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly address whether cheaper alternatives were considered, focusing solely on high-impact partnerships with FaZe and Vitality to maximize reach. This omission raises questions, as lower-cost options like localized marketing or smaller partnerships could have been explored, though the chosen strategy aligns with the goal of large-scale user acquisition and ecosystem development.

Justification

The absence of discussion on alternatives weakens transparency, as industry practices suggest viable lower-cost strategies, such as social media campaigns. The proposal’s consolidation of sub-proposals implies some efficiency, but without evidence of exploring other options, it falls short of fully addressing cost-efficiency, despite the strategic focus on high-impact outcomes.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 3

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

■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 fund purposes, allocating $4.9 million for sponsorships with FaZe and Vitality, personnel, ecosystem tools, and administration, with a detailed budget breakdown. However, it lacks specific KPIs, milestones, or metrics, only vaguely referencing “clear KPIs for outreach and onboarding” without defining them, which undermines the ability to track and evaluate fund usage effectively.

Justification

The budget specifies amounts like $2 million per sponsorship and $120,000 per account manager, ensuring transparency in fund allocation. Yet, the absence of detailed KPIs, such as user acquisition targets or tool adoption rates, and undefined milestones hinder evidence-based tracking. This partial clarity, compared to industry standards where metrics are explicit, limits the proposal’s transparency.

Score: 5/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Budgets are clearly specified, with $4.9 million broken down into sponsorships, personnel, tools, and administration, including a $450,000 VAT buffer. Timelines are minimally addressed, noting a one-year sponsorship duration, but lack phased schedules. Work packages, like tool development or fan engagement programs, are described generally without detailed deliverables, reducing traceability.

Justification

The precise budget allocation enhances financial transparency, but the vague one-year timeline and lack of specific work package details, such as development phases for the NFT framework, fall short of OpenGov best practices. This incomplete specification limits stakeholders’ ability to monitor progress, warranting a satisfactory but not robust evaluation.

Score: 4/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Success criteria are weakly defined, with the proposal citing broad outcomes like increased visibility and user engagement but no specific, measurable targets. It mentions KPIs and quarterly reviews by the Esport Committee, yet fails to detail these metrics, such as expected user growth or business partnerships, making later evaluation challenging.

Justification

The mention of KPIs and reviews shows intent to evaluate, but the lack of concrete criteria, unlike other Polkadot proposals with defined targets, significantly weakens traceability. Without quantifiable goals, stakeholders cannot assess impact, aligning with a weak fulfillment of this criterion due to insufficient specificity.

Score: 3/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal plans quarterly performance reviews by the Esport Committee to monitor progress and ensure alignment, indicating documentation and reporting. However, it lacks details on report content, format, or accessibility, such as whether financial audits or user data will be included, limiting transparency and traceability of the reporting process.

Justification

The commitment to quarterly reviews suggests structured reporting, supporting traceability, but the absence of specifics on what will be reported or how it will be shared reduces effectiveness. Compared to Polkadot’s standard for public progress updates, this partial plan is good but not fully transparent, meriting a moderate evaluation.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 18/40 | Average: 4.50/10 (45%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The proposers, including DonDiegoSanchez and Angie Dalton, along with organizations like Airlyft and Nyvium Labs, have made verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem. DonDiegoSanchez, a Head Ambassador, has driven community growth initiatives, as seen in referendum discussions. Angie Dalton, an advisor to the Web3 Foundation, has supported gaming projects like Dot Play. Partners such as Airlyft and Nyvium Labs are noted for onboarding tools, though specific contributions are less documented. Limited information on other proposers, like Strindbergman, reduces overall clarity.

Justification

DonDiegoSanchez’s role in the Ambassador Program and Angie Dalton’s work with Dot Play are traceable via referenda records and public posts. Airlyft and Nyvium Labs’ involvement in onboarding is mentioned in ecosystem discussions, but lacks detailed evidence. The absence of verifiable contributions for all proposers, per available data, limits the assessment, though key figures’ track records provide partial confidence.

Score: 6/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The proposers have likely implemented projects like the Polkadot Ambassador Program, led by DonDiegoSanchez, which fosters community engagement, and Dot Play, supported by Angie Dalton, focusing on gaming applications. Airlyft and Nyvium Labs have contributed to onboarding platforms, as referenced in ecosystem plans. However, specific outcomes or completion details for these projects are not fully documented in public records, limiting verification of their success.

Justification

The Ambassador Program and Dot Play are cited in referenda and community posts as active initiatives, suggesting successful implementation. Airlyft and Nyvium Labs’ onboarding work is noted, but without metrics or project reports, success is assumed rather than confirmed. The lack of comprehensive data on project outcomes constrains the evaluation.

Score: 5/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Public references exist for some proposers, with DonDiegoSanchez’s contributions documented in referendum records and Angie Dalton’s activities detailed in LinkedIn posts about Dot Play and Web3 Foundation work. Community feedback on social platforms acknowledges their roles. However, for proposers like Strindbergman and MoonBearer, references are scarce, and no code repositories are cited for partners like Airlyft, reducing overall credibility evidence.

Justification

DonDiegoSanchez’s referenda participation and Angie Dalton’s public posts provide verifiable references, supported by community discussions. Limited or no references for other proposers and partners, per search results, weaken the collective credibility. The absence of technical repositories or publications further limits evidence, aligning with partial fulfillment.

Score: 5/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team, led by experienced figures like DonDiegoSanchez and Angie Dalton, appears capable of delivering outcomes, given their roles in governance and gaming initiatives. Partners like Airlyft and Braille bring technical expertise, but limited public data on other proposers, such as MoonBearer, introduces uncertainty. The $4.9 million esports initiative’s complexity requires robust coordination, which the team’s partial track record supports cautiously.

Justification

DonDiegoSanchez’s governance experience and Angie Dalton’s strategic advisory role suggest capability, as do partners’ technical contributions. However, incomplete information on the full team’s past performance, per available sources, raises concerns about executing a large-scale project. The evidence supports moderate confidence in delivery, tempered by data gaps.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 5

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