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

Polkadot Storage Phase 3

Track: 34 | Origin: BigSpender | Amount: 1.900.002 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

Eiger aims to develop a native storage solution for Polkadot to support the “Ubiquitous Supercomputer” vision.

Ecosystem Impact

A native storage solution enhances Polkadot’s independence and scalability, enabling data-intensive applications.

Proposed Action

Eiger requests 1.9M USDT to complete Phase 3, including JAM integration, lightweight proof systems, and economic model enhancements, delivering a functional storage system.

Expected Outcomes

The project will provide a robust storage layer, supporting JAM, reducing costs, and fostering ecosystem growth through new applications.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The Polkadot Storage Phase 3 proposal significantly contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development by establishing a native storage solution that supports data-intensive applications, enhancing the network’s capability to attract developers. It fosters adoption through integration with the Join-Accumulate Machine (JAM), aligning with Polkadot’s scalability goals. Resilience is improved by decentralizing data storage, reducing reliance on external systems and mitigating risks of data loss. Relevance is sustained by addressing modern blockchain demands for integrated storage, ensuring Polkadot remains competitive. With over 90% of the phase completed and testing underway, the proposal demonstrates measurable progress toward these outcomes, positioning Polkadot as a robust platform for future growth.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on native storage directly supports development and adoption by enabling new use cases, as detailed in the integration document with JAM. Resilience is bolstered through decentralized storage, and relevance is maintained by aligning with JAM’s architecture, as evidenced by the proposal’s technical advancements and testnet progress.

Score: 9/10

■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 added value by creating a permanent native storage layer for Polkadot, designed as a public good using DOT as the fee token. This infrastructure supports ongoing application development, reducing costs and complexity for future projects. The marketplace model enables access to diverse storage options, fostering innovation and competition. Integration with JAM ensures compatibility with Polkadot’s future architecture, providing scalability and composability. By maintaining the system post-implementation, the proposal ensures lasting benefits, such as streamlined development processes and enhanced ecosystem functionality, which will continue to drive growth beyond the project’s completion.

Justification

The permanent storage solution, public good status, and marketplace model, as outlined in the Eiger proposal, ensure long-term utility. JAM integration guarantees future relevance, while maintenance plans support sustained value, though funding details for upkeep remain partially unclear.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal directly addresses Polkadot’s lack of a native storage solution, a structural weakness that forces reliance on external networks or fragmented parachain-specific storage. By implementing a standardized, secure storage layer, it simplifies development, enhances security, and reduces complexity for projects requiring data storage. Integration with JAM further resolves potential future weaknesses related to data availability for scalable applications. The proposal’s advanced stage, with testing in private testnets, indicates a practical solution to this critical gap, strengthening Polkadot’s infrastructure and operational efficiency.

Justification

The absence of native storage is a clear limitation, as noted in the Eiger proposal. The proposed solution mitigates this by offering a cohesive storage framework, with JAM integration addressing future scalability needs, supported by the proposal’s technical details and progress.

Score: 9/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal strongly promotes interoperability by exposing the storage layer via Cross-Consensus Message (XCM), enabling parachains to access data seamlessly across the ecosystem. User retention is enhanced by supporting robust applications that rely on reliable storage, improving user experience and engagement. Parachain development is facilitated by providing essential infrastructure, lowering barriers for developers who no longer need to build separate storage solutions. The marketplace model offers flexible storage options, encouraging innovation and accelerating project timelines, thus fostering a vibrant ecosystem with interconnected and efficient parachains.

Justification

XCM integration, as described in the Polkassembly document, ensures interoperability. Enhanced application capabilities support user retention, and the storage infrastructure, detailed in the Eiger proposal, streamlines parachain development, making the proposal highly effective in these areas.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 36/40 | Average: 9.00/10 (90%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The Polkadot Storage Phase 3 proposal, requesting 1,900,002 USDt, aligns with the BigSpender origin, which is designed for significant treasury expenditures. The BigSpender track, as defined in Polkadot’s OpenGov system, supports large-scale funding requests, typically up to 1,000,000 DOT, but the treasury’s ability to spend stablecoins like USDt, held on AssetHub, accommodates this request. The proposal aims to fund a native storage solution, a critical infrastructure project, fitting the treasury’s purpose of supporting ecosystem development. However, the use of USDt instead of DOT introduces slight ambiguity regarding the exact spending limit, as the BigSpender track’s cap is defined in DOT terms, but the proposal’s scale and intent clearly match the origin’s scope for substantial investments.

Justification

The proposal’s large funding request for a strategic infrastructure project aligns with the BigSpender origin’s purpose, as per the Polkadot wiki. The use of USDt is valid given the treasury’s asset flexibility, though the lack of a precise USDt limit slightly complicates the fit, warranting a near-perfect score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

The Polkadot Storage project has prior proposals with comparable content, specifically Phases 1 and 2, approved under referenda #494 and #1150, respectively, which funded the initial development of a native storage parachain. An earlier attempt at Phase 3, referendum #1313, was rejected by a narrow margin, prompting Eiger to refine and resubmit the current proposal with over 90% completion. These prior proposals focused on establishing and advancing the same storage solution, providing clear context for the current request. The approvals of Phases 1 and 2 demonstrate governance support, while the rejection of the initial Phase 3 indicates areas for improvement, which the current proposal addresses through enhanced transparency and progress updates.

Justification

The existence of Phases 1, 2, and the rejected Phase 3, as documented in the proposal and Polkassembly, clearly establishes comparable content and outcomes. This history is well-articulated, offering full context for the current proposal’s place in the project’s lifecycle, justifying a perfect score.

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 advances a strategically vital project for Polkadot’s native storage, supported by detailed documentation, including code repositories, a technical book, and weekly forum updates. With over 90% of Phase 3 completed and testing in private testnets, the proposal demonstrates significant progress, justifying its place in governance. The resubmission after the rejection of the initial Phase 3 could be perceived as a minor burden, but improvements, such as integration with JAM and enhanced economic models, address prior concerns, aligning with Polkadot’s long-term goals. The governance system, designed for iterative project funding, accommodates such resubmissions, and the proposal’s transparency ensures it contributes constructively to decision-making processes.

Justification

The proposal’s thorough preparation, transparency, and alignment with ecosystem goals, as evidenced by supporting documents and updates, indicate meaningful use. The resubmission is justified by progress and improvements, though it slightly burdens the system, warranting a high but not perfect score.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 29/30 | Average: 9.67/10 (97%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested 1.9 million USDT for Polkadot Storage Phase 3 is largely proportionate to the potential benefits, as it funds the completion of a native storage solution critical for Polkadot’s scalability and application development. With over 90% of the phase completed, as evidenced by private testnet progress, the funding ensures deployment and integration with the Join-Accumulate Machine (JAM). The cost, covering 76 full-time equivalents at $25,000 each, aligns with blockchain development standards. However, the significant amount for finalizing a near-complete project raises questions about efficiency, though the strategic value of enabling data-intensive applications and enhancing Polkadot’s competitiveness justifies the expenditure.

Justification

The proposal’s advanced stage and alignment with Polkadot’s vision, detailed in the Polkassembly document, support proportionality. The cost per FTE is reasonable, but the large sum for final tasks slightly tempers the score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework of 1.9 million USDT for 76 full-time equivalents is reasonable when compared to prior phases of the same project, with Phase 1 at $456,250 for 18.25 FTE and Phase 2 at $443,750 for 17.75 FTE, maintaining a consistent $25,000 per FTE. Compared to other Polkadot treasury proposals, such as Polkadot Relayers 2024 at approximately $251,400, the budget is larger but reflects the unique scope of native storage development. The lack of directly comparable storage projects and the project’s alignment with industry costs for complex blockchain solutions support its reasonableness, though its scale is notable among treasury spends.

Justification

The consistent cost structure across phases, as shown in the Eiger proposal, and the project’s specialized nature justify the budget. However, its size relative to smaller proposals, noted in treasury spending data, suggests a slightly lower score due to limited direct comparators.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury and network gain a native storage solution that enables data-intensive applications, reduces reliance on external networks, and integrates with JAM for future scalability. Features like lightweight proof systems, Erasure Coding, and a marketplace model for storage options enhance Polkadot’s functionality and competitiveness. This infrastructure supports developers, fosters innovation, and strengthens Polkadot’s position as a leading blockchain platform, potentially increasing network activity and value, as outlined in the integration document with JAM.

Justification

The proposal’s deliverables, detailed in the integration document and Polkassembly, provide clear, strategic benefits, including enhanced ecosystem capabilities and long-term growth potential, warranting a perfect score for added value.

Score: 10/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly address whether cheaper alternatives, such as leveraging existing decentralized storage like IPFS or Filecoin, were considered. Eiger’s extensive research since 2021 and Web3 Foundation grants suggest alternatives were likely evaluated, but the focus on a tailored native solution indicates prioritization of integration and performance. The specialized requirements for Polkadot and JAM compatibility likely limit viable alternatives, though the absence of documented consideration raises concerns about cost efficiency.

Justification

The lack of explicit discussion on alternatives, despite Eiger’s research history noted in the Web3 Foundation grant, limits the score. The project’s unique needs, as per the Eiger proposal, suggest alternatives may be impractical, but transparency is lacking.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

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

The Polkadot Storage Phase 3 proposal clearly communicates the use of 1.9 million USDT for completing development tasks, such as polka-index, polka-fetch, Delia, Gregor, and deployment, with milestones like private and public testnet testing. Funds are allocated to specific tasks, with detailed breakdowns in the Eiger proposal, such as $300,000 for polka-index implementation. However, while milestones are well-defined, the proposal lacks explicit Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or metrics, such as storage retrieval times or transaction throughput, limiting the ability to quantitatively track progress. General goals like successful JAM integration are mentioned, but without measurable benchmarks, evidence-based evaluation is partially constrained.

Justification

The Eiger proposal provides clear fund allocation and milestone details, but the absence of specific KPIs or metrics, as noted in the Polkassembly document, reduces traceability, justifying a score reflecting strong communication with a notable gap.

Score: 7/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Budgets, timelines, and work packages are meticulously specified in the proposal, with a total Phase 3 budget of 1.9 million USDT for 76 full-time equivalents at $25,000 each, consistent with Phases 1 and 2. The Eiger proposal details eight milestones, such as Research ($275,000, 11 FTE) and Deployment ($125,000, 5 FTE), each with tasks, deliverables, and completion status. Timelines indicate a 7-month duration for Phase 3, part of a ~14-month project, with precise task breakdowns in Section 3.2. This level of detail ensures clarity for tracking progress and resource allocation, meeting high transparency standards.

Justification

The comprehensive budget, timeline, and work package breakdowns in the Eiger proposal, supported by status updates in the Polkassembly document, provide exceptional clarity, warranting a perfect score for specification.

Score: 10/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Success criteria are implied through deliverables, such as functional code, tests, and documentation for milestones like polka-store and Delia, but they lack quantifiable measures. The proposal specifies outcomes like a working storage system and JAM integration, yet does not define metrics, such as achieving specific performance benchmarks or user adoption rates. This qualitative approach, while clear in intent, limits rigorous evaluation, as stakeholders cannot assess success against numerical targets, reducing the proposal’s traceability for post-implementation review.

Justification

The presence of deliverables as criteria, noted in the Eiger proposal, partially meets the need for evaluation, but the absence of quantifiable metrics, as seen in the integration document, restricts comprehensive assessment, justifying a moderate score.

Score: 6/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

Documentation and reporting are extensively planned, with each milestone requiring specific outputs, such as research reports, API specifications, and user guides, as detailed in the Eiger proposal. A technical book is maintained for comprehensive documentation, and the project commits to bi-weekly progress reports on the Polkadot forum, with open-source code available on GitHub. These measures ensure continuous transparency and community access, enabling robust tracking and evaluation throughout and beyond the project’s duration.

Justification

The detailed documentation plans and regular, transparent reporting, evidenced by the Polkassembly document and forum updates, fully meet transparency requirements, supporting a perfect score for traceability.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

Eiger, the proposer, has made significant, verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem, notably integrating Move to Substrate for smart contract execution and developing "Strawberry," a client for the Join-Accumulate Machine (JAM). These efforts enhance Polkadot’s functionality and scalability. Additionally, Eiger’s completion of Polkadot Storage Phases 1 and 2 demonstrates direct contributions to native storage infrastructure. Their work is traceable through GitHub repositories and Polkadot’s official acknowledgment on social media, confirming their active role in advancing the ecosystem since 2018.

Justification

Eiger’s contributions, including Move integration and Strawberry, are well-documented in the Eiger proposal and public platforms, with official recognition, justifying a perfect score for verifiable, impactful ecosystem contributions.

Score: 10/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Eiger has successfully implemented Polkadot Storage Phases 1 and 2, funded under referenda #494 and #1150, establishing core components of a native storage parachain. Beyond Polkadot, they delivered "Pathfinder," a leading Starknet node, and contributed to Aleo’s snarkOS for privacy-focused blockchain infrastructure. "Zigqurat," a testing framework, improved security for ZCash, XRP, and Algorand. Eiger also built a browser-based light node for Celestia and "Hooks IDE" for smart contract development, showcasing a robust portfolio of completed blockchain projects.

Justification

The successful completion of Polkadot Storage phases and external projects like Pathfinder and Zigqurat, as detailed in the Eiger proposal, demonstrate Eiger’s ability to deliver complex solutions, warranting a perfect 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?

Eiger’s credibility is supported by public references, including their GitHub repository hosting polka-storage with recent activity like pull request #666 for P2P functionality. The Polka Storage Book provides detailed technical documentation. Bi-weekly updates on the Polkadot forum since March 2024 show transparency and engagement, with positive feedback in earlier discussions praising the project’s potential. Polkadot’s official social media post acknowledging Move integration further validates Eiger’s contributions, ensuring robust public evidence of their expertise.

Justification

Active GitHub repositories, comprehensive documentation, regular forum updates, and positive feedback, as evidenced in the Polkassembly document and forum, fully support Eiger’s credibility, justifying a perfect score.

Score: 10/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Eiger’s team, with members like Kyle Granger and Piotr Olszewski, has extensive blockchain experience since 2018, specializing in Rust and decentralized systems. Having completed Polkadot Storage Phases 1 and 2 and advanced Phase 3 to over 90% completion with private testnet testing, they demonstrate strong delivery capability. Collaboration with Parity refines their JAM integration approach. Their successful external projects, like Starknet’s Pathfinder, further confirm their technical proficiency, positioning them to deliver the proposed native storage solution effectively.

Justification

The team’s experience, progress on Phase 3, and proven track record across ecosystems, as noted in the Eiger proposal and Polkassembly document, ensure high capability, supporting a perfect score.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

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