Summary

1. About this Report
2. Referendum-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. Sources
5. Evaluation
6. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze OpenGov proposals as objectively and transparently as possible, and to evaluate them based on the central question:

Does the proposal contribute to Polkadot’s long-term success?

Referendum-Info

Title: Substrate Asset Game Engine (SAGE) revised

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 80.000 USDT

Status: Executed

Summary of the proposal

SAGE, or Substrate Asset Game Engine, is a proposal by Rosťa aimed at benefiting the Polkadot ecosystem, particularly for junior developers and game developers. The main goal is to improve tooling for .net development in Polkadot, which is used by many projects like Xcavate, Ajuna, and PlutoFramework. Supporting SAGE will help these projects by allowing teams to focus more on their final products and less on low-level details.

Cedric, the main developer behind SAGE and his company Ajuna, have a proven track record of developing open-source tooling for the .net ecosystem and creating advanced on-chain games. Their work is well-maintained and has been beneficial for the community, as seen in the quick responses to GitHub issues and contributions from other developers.

SAGE has already shown its effectiveness in hackathons, with projects using Substrate.Net.Api winning major prizes. The .net tooling developed by Cedric and Ajuna is powerful and easy to use, which is crucial for the success of projects relying on it.

Marketing for SAGE is not necessary, as developers will naturally find and use the tooling if it is useful for their C# applications secured by Polkadot. SAGE aims to provide a full-featured solution for game developers who may not be familiar with blockchain technology.

The value brought by SAGE is proportional to the amount requested, with Cedric asking for a small percentage of the treasury funds. The impact on the ecosystem is already significant, and the potential for growth is even larger. SAGE offers more than just Unity SDK integration, including Substrate pallets and a JavaScript SDK.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The Substrate Asset Game Engine (SAGE) proposal facilitates game development on Polkadot by providing accessible tools for .NET and Unity, targeting junior developers to expand the ecosystem’s developer base. This could drive adoption by increasing the number of gaming projects, enhancing network activity and resilience through diversified use cases. Polkadot’s relevance in the blockchain gaming sector, a competitive space, is supported by enabling developers to create engaging applications. However, the proposal lacks specific metrics to quantify adoption or network impact, limiting measurable contributions. The proven track record of the Ajuna team and open-source approach suggest potential for sustained development, but actual long-term impact depends on tool uptake.

Justification

SAGE aligns with Polkadot’s goal of fostering diverse applications, particularly in gaming, which can attract users and developers, supporting adoption and resilience. The open-source model ensures longevity, but without defined KPIs, measurable impact is uncertain, warranting a strong but not exceptional rating.

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?

SAGE delivers sustainable value through open-source tools, including Substrate pallets and SDKs, which can be maintained and enhanced by the community long after initial funding. These tools enable ongoing game development, generating persistent network activity via transactions and user engagement. Projects like Hexalem demonstrate potential for lasting applications that drive ecosystem growth. The proposal’s low funding request minimizes risk while offering tools that existing projects like Xcavate already utilize, suggesting continued relevance. Community contributions, evidenced by GitHub activity, further ensure sustainability, positioning SAGE to support Polkadot’s vitality over time.

Justification

The open-source nature and community involvement provide a strong foundation for sustained utility. Persistent games and developer tools offer long-term benefits, justifying a very high rating due to minimal risk and proven team reliability.

Score: 9/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

SAGE addresses Polkadot’s structural weakness of complex blockchain integration for game developers, particularly those less experienced with blockchain technology. By offering simplified .NET and Unity tools, it lowers technical barriers, enabling junior developers to build on Polkadot. The proposal notes that without such tools, developers might abandon the ecosystem, highlighting this issue. This fosters a more inclusive developer community, aligning with Polkadot’s aim to be accessible and competitive against other blockchain platforms with established gaming ecosystems.

Justification

The complexity of blockchain integration is a recognized barrier, and SAGE directly tackles this by simplifying development, supporting inclusivity and innovation, which merits a strong rating.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

SAGE promotes user retention by enabling engaging games that keep users active within Polkadot, potentially increasing transaction volumes. It indirectly supports parachain development by driving demand for parachains hosting these games, as seen with Ajuna’s projects. While not directly enhancing interoperability, games built with SAGE can leverage Polkadot’s cross-chain capabilities inherent to its architecture. The proposal’s focus on application development rather than new parachain creation means parachain impact is indirect, and interoperability benefits are inherent rather than actively advanced.

Justification

SAGE contributes to user retention and parachain usage, but its interoperability impact relies on Polkadot’s existing features, resulting in a very good but not exceptional rating.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 32/40 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The Substrate Asset Game Engine (SAGE) proposal, requesting 80,000 USDT, aligns with the MediumSpender origin, which permits expenditures up to 100,000 DOT. At a DOT price of 4.22 USD, 80,000 USDT equates to approximately 18,957 DOT, well within the limit. The treasury supports spending in assets like USDT with approved conversion rates, and the proposal’s focus on developing tools to enhance Polkadot’s ecosystem fits the treasury’s purpose of funding impactful projects. The funding amount and objectives are consistent with MediumSpender’s scope for medium-sized initiatives.

Justification

The proposal’s funding request is significantly below the MediumSpender cap, and its purpose aligns with treasury goals, ensuring full compliance with the origin’s scope, warranting the highest rating.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

The SAGE proposal references a prior version, referendum #1509, which was rejected, indicating a history of similar content. The rejection suggests issues with the original, possibly in funding justification or execution details, though specific reasons are not provided. The revised proposal addresses feedback, showing improvement. No other directly comparable proposals for game development tools were found, but related tool development proposals, such as those for NFT platforms like KodaDot, have had mixed outcomes, with some approved and others rejected based on ecosystem priorities.

Justification

The existence of a rejected prior proposal provides context, and the revision demonstrates responsiveness, but limited information on other comparables slightly lowers the rating due to incomplete historical clarity.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The SAGE proposal meaningfully engages Polkadot’s governance system by seeking funding for tools that enhance the gaming ecosystem, aligning with treasury objectives to drive innovation. The revision from a rejected proposal shows constructive use of feedback, a key governance mechanism. The low funding request of 80,000 USDT, relative to the treasury’s 12.515 million DOT, minimizes burden. However, repeated revisions without clear resolution of past issues could risk burdening the system, though the proposal’s focus and team track record suggest efficient resource use.

Justification

The proposal’s alignment with treasury goals and low funding request indicate meaningful use, with the revision process enhancing governance engagement, though minor concerns about potential repetitive revisions temper the rating.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 27/30 | Average: 9.00/10 (90%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The SAGE proposal requests 80,000 USDT, equivalent to approximately 18,957 DOT at $4.22 per DOT, to enhance game development tools for Polkadot, targeting junior developers. This could expand the developer base, increase gaming projects, and boost network activity, aligning with Polkadot’s growth goals. The amount is modest compared to the treasury’s 25 million DOT, representing about 0.0758%. The team’s track record, with successful hackathon projects like Hexalem, suggests potential for impact. However, the lack of specific KPIs to quantify benefits, such as developer uptake or transaction growth, limits certainty, and unaddressed long-term costs temper proportionality.

Justification

The low funding request aligns with potential ecosystem growth, supported by the team’s proven expertise, but undefined metrics and maintenance costs reduce confidence in full proportionality, warranting a strong but cautious rating.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

SAGE’s budget of 80,000 USDT (18,957 DOT) is reasonable compared to other Polkadot treasury proposals for development tools. For instance, a Kusama proposal for KodaDot requested $150,000, equivalent to about 35,545 DOT at current prices, for NFT enhancements. Another proposal for Subsquid’s data indexing requested 58,250 DOT. SAGE’s smaller request focuses on improving existing tools, not building new infrastructure, aligning with its scope. However, the absence of a detailed cost breakdown, market benchmarks for .NET/Unity SDKs, and comparison with low-code alternatives introduces uncertainty, as does the incorrect KodaDot comparison in prior analysis, which was Kusama-based.

Justification

The budget is smaller than comparable proposals, fitting the project’s scope, but lack of transparency and benchmarking against other chains’ SDKs lowers the rating due to incomplete justification.

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 enhanced .NET and Unity tools, including Substrate pallets and SDKs, lowering barriers for game developers and potentially increasing Polkadot’s gaming projects. This could drive transaction volumes and user engagement, benefiting network activity. The open-source model, with community contributions via GitHub, ensures long-term utility. Projects like Xcavate already use similar tools, and Ajuna’s Hexalem shows potential for sustained activity. However, the lack of quantified economic benefits, such as additional transaction fees, and no governance processes for ongoing development limit clarity on the exact value returned.

Justification

The tools offer significant potential for developer attraction and network growth, supported by an open-source model, but unquantified returns and governance gaps justify a high but not maximum rating.

Score: 9/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The SAGE proposal does not mention evaluating cheaper alternatives, such as existing SDKs, low-code, or no-code solutions, which could potentially serve the same junior developer audience at lower costs. While SAGE leverages the Ajuna team’s expertise in .NET/Unity tools, the absence of a competitive analysis against other blockchain SDKs, like Ethereum’s, or alternative approaches raises concerns about cost efficiency. The modest 80,000 USDT request mitigates some risk, but without evidence of exploring options, the proposal misses an opportunity to maximize treasury value.

Justification

The lack of alternative consideration is a critical oversight for cost efficiency, though the specialized nature and low funding request partially offset this, resulting in a moderate rating.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 27/40 | Average: 6.75/10 (68%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The SAGE proposal clearly communicates the use of 80,000 USDT, with 60,000 USDT allocated for core framework development and 20,000 USDT for two demo games, Full House Fury and Casino Jam. Four milestones specify deliverables, funding per phase, and progress percentages, such as 15,000 USDT for Milestone 1’s SDK components. Success criteria include developer growth and hackathon participation, but quantitative KPIs, like specific developer counts or transaction volumes, are absent. Metrics encompass milestone completion rates, though GitHub activity is implied rather than explicitly stated. Community channels support updates, yet the lack of precise KPIs limits full clarity.

Justification

The detailed funding breakdown and milestones ensure strong transparency, but the absence of specific quantitative KPIs and reliance on implied metrics like GitHub activity slightly reduce precision for evidence-based tracking, warranting a high rating.

Score: 8/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal details a budget of 80,000 USDT, split into 60,000 USDT for the core engine and 20,000 USDT for demo games. Four milestones outline timelines and work packages: Milestone 1 (1 month, 15,000 USDT, 2 FTEs), Milestone 2 (2 months, 30,000 USDT, 2 FTEs), Milestone 3 (2 months, 15,000 USDT, 1 FTE), and Milestone 4 (2 months, 20,000 USDT, 2 FTEs), each with deliverables like UI integration and game demos. GitHub repository links enhance traceability. The specifications are comprehensive, leaving no ambiguity in budget, timeline, or task definitions.

Justification

The precise budget allocation, detailed timelines, and well-defined work packages with linked deliverables fully meet transparency standards, justifying the highest rating.

Score: 10/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal defines success criteria under “Key Ecosystem Benefits,” including developer growth, tool composability, open-source contributions, and hackathon participation, measurable through developer adoption, tool integrations, GitHub contributions, and hackathon outcomes. Milestone progress percentages provide additional evaluation points. However, specific numerical targets, such as expected developer numbers or transaction volumes, are not included, limiting objectivity. The framework supports evidence-based evaluation but could be strengthened with precise benchmarks to ensure comprehensive assessment of the project’s impact on Polkadot’s ecosystem.

Justification

Clear and measurable criteria are provided, but the lack of specific numerical goals reduces full objectivity, justifying a strong but not maximum rating.

Score: 7/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal plans robust documentation through open-source GitHub repositories linked to each milestone, enabling public access to code and progress. Community channels, including Telegram and Discord, are designated for updates and feedback, ensuring ongoing engagement. The Ajuna Network Wiki provides extensive technical documentation, including guides and benchmarks. However, the absence of a formal reporting schedule, such as monthly reports, introduces risks of irregular updates. Despite this, the open-source approach and community-driven mechanisms align with Polkadot’s governance expectations for transparency and accountability.

Justification

The open-source repositories, wiki, and community channels provide strong documentation, but the lack of a formal reporting schedule slightly reduces predictability, justifying a high rating.

Score: 8/10

■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?

Rostislav Litovkin and Ajuna Network, led by Cedric Decoster, have made traceable contributions to Polkadot. Ajuna developed open-source tools like Substrate.Net.API and Polkadot Unity SDK, referenced in their GitHub repositories with active maintenance and community contributions. Litovkin contributed to Hexalem and a mobile wallet for Substrate-based chains. However, the proposal’s claim that projects like Xcavate use these tools lacks public verification, introducing uncertainty. Hackathon successes, such as first place at Polkadot Winter Hackathon 2023, further validate their ecosystem engagement.

Justification

Verifiable contributions through GitHub and hackathons are strong, but the unconfirmed Xcavate claim reduces full certainty, warranting a strong but not maximum rating.

Score: 7/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Ajuna Network has successfully implemented Awesome Ajuna Avatars, BattleMogs, and Hexalem, the latter winning first place at Polkadot Winter Hackathon 2023. Their tools, Substrate.Net.API and Polkadot Unity SDK, support ecosystem projects, though specific integrations like Xcavate lack public confirmation. Rostislav Litovkin contributed to Hexalem and a mobile wallet for Substrate chains. These projects are operational, open-source, and recognized, demonstrating a solid history of implementation within Polkadot’s ecosystem.

Justification

Multiple completed projects with hackathon accolades confirm successful implementation, but the lack of verified adoption data for tools slightly tempers the rating.

Score: 8/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Ajuna Network’s GitHub repositories for Substrate.Net.API and Polkadot Unity SDK show active development and community contributions, supporting credibility. The Ajuna Network Wiki offers technical documentation. Hackathon wins, including first place at Polkadot Winter Hackathon 2023 and second/third places in 2023–2024, provide public validation. Community feedback is implied through GitHub issue resolutions, but direct feedback data is limited. The absence of publications or broader community testimonials slightly restricts the scope of references.

Justification

Robust repositories and hackathon successes are strong references, but limited direct feedback and no publications lower the rating slightly.

Score: 7/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team, led by Cedric Decoster with Ajuna Network, has delivered projects like Hexalem and maintained tools like Substrate.Net.API, demonstrating technical expertise. Hackathon wins and rapid GitHub issue resolution suggest reliability. The SAGE proposal’s detailed milestones align with their prior work. However, risks include no planned audits for Rust pallets, dependence on key individuals without backup strategies, and unaddressed milestone escalation plans, which could impact delivery. These gaps introduce uncertainty despite the team’s strong track record.

Justification

Proven expertise supports capability, but risks from missing audits, key person reliance, and lack of contingency plans reduce confidence, justifying a moderate rating.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 28/40 | Average: 7.00/10 (70%)