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

6 Months Extension for the PoKe Berlin Team - Transform Projects to Operational State

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 290.899 USDC

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The PoKe Berlin Team seeks a six-month extension to transform enterprise and government projects into operational states.

Ecosystem Impact

The proposal is relevant to enhance Polkadot’s real-world adoption and credibility across diverse sectors.

Proposed Action

Requesting 290,899 USDC, PoKe aims to finalize project concepts, develop roadmaps, and ensure publicity, with deliverables like MoUs and consortiums.

Expected Outcomes

Operational projects, increased adoption, and enhanced visibility through publicity and follow-up initiatives, strengthening Polkadot’s ecosystem.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal aims to operationalize enterprise and government projects, potentially enhancing Polkadot’s adoption and relevance by demonstrating real-world applications in sectors like healthcare and energy. However, the absence of specific, measurable goals or key performance indicators hinders the ability to assess its long-term impact. While successful projects could strengthen resilience through diversified use cases and support development by attracting stakeholders, the lack of clear metrics and the proposer’s organizational instability create uncertainty. The contribution is thus moderate, with potential but insufficient clarity to ensure measurable outcomes.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on operationalizing projects aligns with adoption and relevance, but without defined metrics, such as the number of projects completed or users onboarded, its impact remains unquantifiable. The liquidation of BOTLabs GmbH further risks continuity, undermining long-term development and resilience.

Score: 6/10

■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?

By operationalizing projects like African health insurance and German photovoltaic systems, the proposal could create sustainable value through scalable models that attract further adoption. These initiatives may generate follow-up projects and enhance Polkadot’s reputation, fostering long-term ecosystem growth. Publicity efforts and conference presentations could amplify visibility, drawing in new partners. However, the lack of detailed plans for sustaining these projects post-extension and concerns about team stability due to BOTLabs GmbH’s liquidation temper the potential. The added value is promising but hinges on successful execution and unresolved risks.

Justification

Scalable projects and publicity offer sustainable benefits, but vague deliverables and organizational uncertainties reduce confidence in long-term outcomes. The proposal’s focus on business development suggests potential for ongoing impact, yet lacks assurance of continuity.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

Polkadot struggles with limited real-world adoption, often perceived as a speculative rather than practical blockchain. The proposal addresses this by advancing enterprise and government projects, showcasing tangible use cases that could enhance credibility and attract users. Initiatives in healthcare, energy, and government sectors directly tackle this adoption gap. However, the effectiveness depends on project delivery, which is uncertain due to unclear goals and BOTLabs GmbH’s liquidation. While the proposal targets a critical weakness, its ability to fully resolve it is constrained by execution risks.

Justification

The focus on real-world applications directly addresses Polkadot’s adoption challenge, a known structural issue. However, the lack of specific targets and team stability concerns limit the proposal’s capacity to fully mitigate this weakness.

Score: 7/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal primarily focuses on business development, aiming to operationalize projects rather than enhancing technical aspects like interoperability, user retention, or parachain development. While projects may leverage Polkadot’s infrastructure, there is no explicit emphasis on improving cross-chain interactions, retaining users through new features, or developing parachains. The involvement of ecosystem partners could indirectly support parachain use, but this is not a primary goal. The proposal’s scope is limited to enterprise adoption, offering minimal direct contribution to these technical areas.

Justification

The proposal’s business-oriented approach does not target interoperability, user retention, or parachain development, focusing instead on project management and adoption. Any technical benefits are incidental, not intentional, resulting in limited impact.

Score: 2/10

■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 proposal, requesting 290,899 USDC for a six-month extension of the PoKe Berlin Team, aligns with the MediumSpender origin, which supports treasury expenditures up to 100,000 DOT. With a DOT price of approximately $4.12, the request equates to about 70,606 DOT, comfortably within the MediumSpender limit. This origin is intended for moderate treasury spends, and the proposal’s aim to fund business development for operationalizing enterprise and government projects fits this purpose. The use of USDC as a treasury-supported asset further ensures compliance, confirming the proposal’s clear alignment with the MediumSpender scope.

Justification

The requested amount is well below the 100,000 DOT cap, and the focus on ecosystem-enhancing business development matches the MediumSpender track’s intent. The treasury’s ability to process stablecoin requests validates the proposal’s fit within the origin’s framework.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

No treasury proposals directly comparable to PoKe’s business development focus exist, as their prior funding was through the Web3 Foundation’s Decentralized Futures Programme, not the treasury. That funding, starting May 2024, supported PoKe for one year, with all milestones achieved, indicating success. Treasury proposals have funded infrastructure, events, or software, but none mirror PoKe’s enterprise adoption efforts. The lack of similar treasury precedents limits comparison, though the team’s prior achievement suggests reliability. Without treasury-specific comparables, the proposal partially fulfills this criterion due to the absence of direct parallels.

Justification: The absence of treasury proposals matching PoKe’s scope restricts direct comparison, but the successful W3F funding outcome provides indirect evidence of capability. The evaluation reflects partial fulfillment due to limited treasury-specific precedents.

Score: 5/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The proposal meaningfully utilizes the governance system by seeking funds to extend PoKe’s work, which has secured agreements in sectors like healthcare and energy, aligning with the treasury’s aim to support ecosystem growth. The request adheres to OpenGov procedures within the MediumSpender track. However, vague deliverables and limited budget transparency could challenge community scrutiny, potentially requiring additional governance resources for clarification. Despite this, the proposal’s intent to advance Polkadot’s adoption justifies its use, outweighing risks of burdening the system, which is designed to handle such evaluations.

Justification

The proposal’s alignment with treasury goals and procedural compliance supports meaningful use, but unclear deliverables pose a risk of inefficiency. The ecosystem benefit and system design mitigate concerns, warranting a strong evaluation with minor caveats.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 23/30 | Average: 7.67/10 (77%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested 290,899 USDC for a six-month extension of the PoKe Berlin Team appears broadly proportionate to the potential benefits, given the team’s track record of securing agreements in sectors like healthcare and energy. Operationalizing these projects could significantly enhance Polkadot’s adoption and visibility. However, the absence of specific, measurable goals, such as the number of projects to be completed or expected user growth, makes it difficult to quantify the benefits. The budget covers salaries, travel, and minor expenses, aligning with the scope, but the lack of clear metrics and BOTLabs GmbH’s liquidation status introduce risks that temper confidence in the proportionality.

Justification

The team’s past success suggests potential for high-impact outcomes, justifying the amount, but vague deliverables and organizational instability reduce certainty. The budget aligns with costs for senior roles and travel, but without KPIs, the benefit assessment is incomplete, warranting a cautious evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework, totaling 253,000 EUR (290,899 USDC), with 174,000 EUR for staff, 60,000 EUR for travel, 9,000 EUR for expenses, and 10,000 EUR for legal and accounting, is reasonable when compared to other Polkadot treasury proposals, which range from tens to hundreds of thousands of USD. While no directly comparable business development proposals exist, the costs align with high-end treasury spends, such as developer activation or research funding. The staff cost per full-time equivalent is high but plausible for senior roles in Berlin. However, the limited budget transparency, lacking detailed justification for travel or expenses, slightly undermines confidence in its reasonableness.

Justification

The budget fits within the spectrum of treasury proposals, and the breakdown supports plausibility, but the lack of granular detail and absence of direct comparables necessitate scrutiny. The costs are within industry norms, supporting a strong but not perfect evaluation.

Score: 8/10

■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 through the operationalization of projects in healthcare, energy, and government sectors, driving real-world adoption critical for Polkadot’s growth. Deliverables include securing MoUs, developing sustainable business models, generating follow-up projects, and enhancing visibility through press releases and conference presentations. These efforts could position Polkadot as a leader in enterprise blockchain solutions, attracting users and developers. The African health insurance project, with potential continental rollout, exemplifies high-impact potential. While the team’s expertise supports these outcomes, the lack of specific metrics limits clarity on the exact value delivered.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on adoption and publicity offers clear, high-value benefits, directly addressing Polkadot’s need for real-world use cases. The team’s track record bolsters confidence, but vague deliverables prevent a strong evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not address whether cheaper alternatives were considered, such as leveraging community resources, smaller teams, or existing ecosystem partners to achieve similar outcomes. The justification emphasizes the team’s unique expertise and established relationships, implying they are optimally positioned. However, alternatives like funding local entrepreneurs or collaborating with other Polkadot teams could potentially reduce costs without compromising impact. The absence of any discussion on cost-saving measures suggests an oversight, particularly given the significant budget, raising concerns about resource efficiency for a critical investor perspective.

Justification

The lack of evidence for exploring alternatives, despite the team’s qualifications, indicates a missed opportunity to optimize costs. This omission is a significant flaw in a high-cost proposal, warranting a low evaluation from a critical investor standpoint.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 24/40 | Average: 6.00/10 (60%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal clearly outlines the use of 290,899 USDC, with 174,000 EUR for staff salaries, 60,000 EUR for travel, 9,000 EUR for expenses, and 10,000 EUR for legal and accounting, providing transparency on fund allocation. However, it lacks specific key performance indicators, milestones, or metrics to track progress or impact. Deliverables like securing MoUs and developing roadmaps are mentioned, but without quantifiable targets, such as the number of agreements or expected outcomes, it is difficult to evaluate effectiveness. This omission hinders evidence-based tracking, limiting the ability to assess whether funds achieve the intended benefits.

Justification

The budget breakdown is transparent, ensuring clarity on fund purposes, but the absence of KPIs, specific milestones, or metrics undermines traceability. The general nature of deliverables fails to provide a measurable framework, warranting a partial score.

Score: 5/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The budget is clearly specified, detailing 253,000 EUR (approximately 290,899 USDC) across staff, travel, expenses, and legal costs, offering a transparent cost structure. The timeline is broadly defined as July to December 2025, but lacks detailed phases or checkpoints. Work packages, including negotiating agreements, developing concepts, and building consortia, are outlined but lack specificity, such as the number of tasks, deadlines, or scope of each deliverable. This generality reduces the ability to monitor progress effectively, though the budget clarity provides some foundation for traceability.

Justification

The detailed budget supports transparency, but vague timelines and unspecific work packages limit traceability. The lack of granular task descriptions or schedules hampers precise tracking, justifying a moderate evaluation.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

he proposal does not provide explicit success criteria to evaluate its outcomes. While it aims to operationalize projects and lists deliverables like securing MoUs and generating follow-up projects, there are no defined benchmarks, such as the number of operational projects or specific adoption metrics, to determine success. This absence makes it challenging to assess whether objectives are met, significantly limiting the ability to conduct evidence-based evaluation. The lack of quantifiable standards leaves stakeholders without a clear framework to measure performance.

Justification

The absence of defined success criteria is a critical flaw, as it prevents objective evaluation of the project’s impact. The general deliverables offer no measurable standards, warranting a low evaluation.

Score: 2/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal outlines plans for documentation and reporting through press releases for projects with concluded MoUs and collaboration agreements, as well as presentations at conferences to share outcomes. However, due to confidentiality constraints from NDAs with enterprise and government partners, detailed reporting is restricted to Polkadot community members willing to sign confidentiality agreements. This approach limits public transparency, as stakeholders without NDAs have minimal access to specific project details or progress updates. While press releases and presentations offer some visibility, the heavy reliance on NDAs undermines open accountability, making it difficult for the broader community to track outcomes effectively.

Justification

The commitment to press releases and conference presentations is positive, but the restriction of detailed reporting to NDA-bound stakeholders significantly reduces transparency. For a treasury-funded project, broader public access to progress reports is essential for accountability, especially for investors expecting clear evidence of fund utilization. The confidentiality measures, while justified for enterprise partnerships, do not enable open, evidence-based evaluation.

Score: 0/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 12/40 | Average: 3.00/10 (30%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The proposers, through BOTLabs GmbH and KILT Protocol, have made significant, verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem. KILT Protocol, a parachain focused on decentralized identity, enhances Polkadot’s utility for real-world applications, with open-source code publicly accessible. PoKe, funded by the Web3 Foundation’s Decentralized Futures Programme since May 2024, has secured enterprise and government agreements across over ten sectors, achieving all milestones. These efforts, validated by W3F oversight, demonstrate tangible impact. However, BOTLabs’ liquidation status introduces uncertainty about ongoing contributions, slightly tempering confidence in their current standing.

Justification

KILT’s technical contributions and PoKe’s business development achievements are well-documented and traceable through repositories and W3F endorsements. The liquidation concern slightly reduces certainty, but the historical impact supports a high evaluation.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

PoKe has successfully advanced several projects, including a signed MoU with a Chinese technology conglomerate for Polkadot integration and a diaspora-financed health insurance project in an African country, with a collaboration agreement involving the Ministry of Innovation and others. Workshops for a German defense project have led to planned collaborations, and initiatives in a US outer territory, like decentralized energy, are progressing. These projects, with signed agreements and ongoing engagements, demonstrate PoKe’s ability to implement impactful partnerships, though full public verification is limited by confidentiality.

Justification

The proposal details specific projects with tangible outcomes, such as MoUs and agreements, indicating successful implementation. The lack of full public disclosure due to NDAs slightly limits verification, justifying a strong but not perfect evaluation.

Score: 8/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

KILT Protocol’s open-source GitHub repositories showcase technical contributions to decentralized identity, with active development and community engagement. KILT’s publications on blockchain identity further establish expertise. Community feedback on Polkadot forums praises KILT’s role and PoKe’s W3F-funded achievements, with W3F confirming all milestones met. Positive mentions on social media reinforce the team’s reputation. These references provide robust evidence of credibility, though the absence of direct PoKe-specific repositories slightly limits the scope of technical references.

Justification

Extensive public references, including KILT’s repositories and publications, combined with positive feedback and W3F validation, strongly support credibility. The minor gap in PoKe-specific references justifies a very high evaluation.

Score: 9/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team, including Ingo Rübe, Elisa Dratsdrummer, and Matthias Möller, has extensive experience in blockchain, marketing, and enterprise adoption, with proven success in KILT Protocol and PoKe’s W3F-funded projects. Their expertise positions them well to operationalize projects and deliver publicity. However, BOTLabs GmbH’s liquidation raises significant concerns about operational continuity, and the proposal lacks clarity on how the team will function post-liquidation. This uncertainty undermines confidence in their ability to deliver all promised outcomes without disruption.

Justification

The team’s qualifications and track record suggest strong capability, but the unresolved liquidation issue poses a critical risk to execution. The absence of a contingency plan warrants a cautious evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 5

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