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

PolkaBiz Retroactive Treasury Request January - April 2025

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 82.667 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

PolkaBiz seeks retroactive funding of 82,667 USDT for mentoring 68 startups and developing a founder portal from January to April 2025.

Ecosystem Impact

Supporting startups drives innovation and adoption in Polkadot, strengthening the ecosystem.

Proposed Action

PolkaBiz requests 82,667 USDT for past work, including screening 100+ applications, securing 300,000 USD in grants, and building a portal, with no repayment commitments.

Expected Outcomes

Continued startup support, increased project onboarding, and enhanced ecosystem growth via the founder portal.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The PolkaBiz proposal contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development and adoption by mentoring 68 startups, securing 300,000 USD in grants, and developing a founder portal for project onboarding. These efforts foster new projects, enhancing network activity and developer engagement. Measurable outcomes include eight startups funded by the Web3 Foundation and three via PBA-X, indicating tangible ecosystem growth. However, the absence of specific project outcomes or follow-on funding limits evidence of sustained resilience or relevance, tempering the long-term impact.

Justification

The mentorship and grants demonstrate immediate contributions to adoption, but lack of KPIs like startup retention or revenue weakens claims of sustained resilience. The portal supports scalability, yet its long-term utility is unproven, reducing certainty of ongoing relevance.

Score: 7/10

■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 offers sustainable value through startups potentially developing enduring Polkadot applications, with 300,000 USD in grants signaling early success. The founder portal could streamline future project support, but no maintenance or adoption plans ensure its longevity. Mentorship establishes a replicable model for fostering innovation, yet without data on startup outcomes like follow-onfunding, the lasting impact remains uncertain, limiting the proposal’s ability to guarantee ecosystem benefits beyond 2025.

Justification

Startups and the portal hold potential for sustained value, but lack of maintenance plans and specific metrics like portal usage or startup success reduces confidence in long-term benefits, justifying a cautious evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal tackles a structural weakness in Polkadot by supporting early-stage startups through mentorship, addressing a gap in project nurturing. Mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants enables new projects to mature, strengthening the ecosystem’s foundation. The founder portal mitigates onboarding inefficiencies, but broader issues like network scalability remain unaddressed. The focus on early-stage support is significant, though limited transparency on project specifics tempers the impact.

Justification

The mentorship and portal directly address the lack of early-stage support, a known ecosystem challenge. However, no evidence of broader structural fixes or detailed startup outcomes slightly lowers the evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal supports parachain development and user retention by mentoring 68 startups likely building Polkadot applications, enhancing network utility. The grants secured suggest projects that could expand parachain ecosystems, attracting users. However, no specific parachain projects are named, and interoperability is not directly addressed, relying on Polkadot’s inherent design. The portal may aid parachain onboarding, but without usage data, the impact on retention or development remains partially substantiated.

Justification

The startups’ potential to develop parachains drives retention, but lack of named projects or interoperability focus limits the evaluation. The portal’s role is promising but unproven, warranting a moderate score.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 1

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

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal aligns precisely with the MediumSpender origin, requesting 82,667 USDT, equivalent to approximately 19,921 DOT at a DOT price of 4.15 USD. The MediumSpender origin allows treasury spending up to 100,000 DOT, and the requested amount is well within this threshold. The proposal funds completed activities, including mentoring 68 startups and developing a founder portal, which supports Polkadot’s ecosystem growth, a core treasury objective. The choice of MediumSpender is appropriate, exceeding Small Spender limits but far below Big Spender caps.

Justification

The MediumSpender origin permits expenditures up to 100,000 DOT, and the conversion (82,667 ÷ 4.15 ≈ 19,921 DOT) confirms compliance. The proposal’s focus on ecosystem enhancement through mentorship and tools matches treasury spending goals. No discrepancies in scope or amount undermine its alignment, ensuring full compliance with the origin’s parameters.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Referendum #1504, a prior PolkaBiz proposal, sought 248,000 USDT for similar mentorship and ecosystem support but was rejected with 50.1% Nay votes due to concerns over transparency, accountability, and potential conflicts of interest. Critics highlighted inadequate reporting and questioned the payment structure. The current proposal, requesting a smaller 82,667 USDT for retroactive funding, addresses some concerns by documenting completed work, such as 300,000 USD in grants secured, but the retroactive nature may still evoke similar governance skepticism.

Justification

Referendum #1504’s rejection, documented on Subsquare and Polkassembly, reflects community demands for robust accountability, directly relevant to #1544’s evaluation. The current proposal’s evidence of outcomes mitigates some past issues, but the retroactive model and lack of detailed reporting mechanisms limit its ability to fully address prior criticisms, warranting a strong but not perfect score.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The proposal uses the governance system meaningfully by presenting verifiable contributions, including mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants, which enhance Polkadot’s ecosystem. Endorsements from Web3 Foundation and Polkadot Blockchain Academy leaders add credibility. However, the retroactive funding model, lacking future milestones or detailed audit processes, risks burdening the system by setting a precedent for less accountable requests. Despite this, the documented outcomes and alignment with treasury goals justify its governance engagement.

Justification

The proposal’s detailed results, such as grants and mentorship metrics, align with OpenGov’s purpose of funding impactful initiatives. The retroactive nature introduces governance complexity, as it bypasses milestone-based accountability, a concern raised in #1504’s rejection. The balance of strong outcomes and potential precedent-setting issues supports a strong but cautious evaluation.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 26/30 | Average: 8.67/10 (87%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The 82,667 USDT request is proportionate to the demonstrated benefits, including mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants (240,000 USD from Web3 Foundation, 60,000 USD from PBA-X). The leverage ratio of 3.6 (300,000 ÷ 82,667) indicates a strong return, with costs per startup at approximately 1,215 USD. These efforts foster Polkadot’s ecosystem growth by enabling new projects. However, the absence of long-term metrics, such as startup follow-on funding or revenue, limits evidence of sustained impact, tempering the proportionality assessment.

Justification

The secured grants and mentorship outcomes justify the cost, with a favorable leverage ratio. The lack of detailed startup success metrics, like exits or user adoption, reduces certainty of long-term benefits, warranting a slightly lower score than initially assessed.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The 82,667 USDT budget is reasonable compared to other Polkadot Treasury proposals, such as a 316,000 USDT request for user onboarding or a 272,500 USDC marketing initiative, which involve larger scopes. PolkaBiz’s prior proposal (#1504) sought 248,000 USDT for a year, making the current four-month request modest. However, the lack of budget allocation details for mentoring versus portal development and limited comparable mentorship proposals hinder precise benchmarking, slightly undermining the framework’s transparency.

Justification

The budget is smaller than other treasury requests, and outcomes like 300,000 USD in grants support its reasonableness. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns and directly comparable mentorship proposals limits full validation, justifying a cautious evaluation.

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 Polkadot network gain significant value: 68 mentored startups equipped to build innovative projects, 300,000 USD in grants enabling ecosystem development, a founder portal streamlining project onboarding, and a Web2-to-Web3 transition yielding a government MOU. These outcomes enhance network activity, adoption, and Polkadot’s competitive edge. Endorsements from Web3 Foundation and Polkadot Blockchain Academy validate the impact, though long-term startup success remains unquantified.

Justification

The mentorship, grants, portal, and MOU drive ecosystem growth, aligning with Polkadot’s goals. The lack of metrics on startup outcomes, such as follow-on funding, slightly reduces the evaluation, but the immediate impacts are substantial and well-documented.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not address cheaper alternatives, as it seeks retroactive funding for completed work, focusing on compensating delivered value. The 82,667 USDT covers mentoring 68 startups and portal development, justified by outcomes like 300,000 USD in grants. However, no exploration of cost-saving options, such as open-source tools for the portal or performance-based payments, is mentioned, which is a missed opportunity to demonstrate efficiency, particularly for a retroactive request.

Justification

The retroactive nature limits alternative considerations, but the absence of any discussion on cost optimization, despite significant outcomes, is a weakness. Efficiency is critical for treasury spending, and the lack of such analysis supports a lower score.

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 proposal communicates that the 82,667 USDT compensates past mentorship of 68 startups, facilitation of 300,000 USD in grants, and development of a founder portal from January to April 2025. Metrics include 100+ applications screened, 68 startups mentored, and grants secured (240,000 USD from Web3 Foundation, 60,000 USD from PBA-X). However, it lacks a detailed budget breakdown, leaving unclear how funds were allocated across activities, which hinders financial transparency and evidence-based tracking.

Justification

The proposal provides KPIs and milestones for completed work, but the absence of cost allocation details for mentoring, portal development, or overhead limits full clarity. This gap undermines the ability to verify fund usage, critical for transparency, especially in a retroactive request.

Score: 4/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal specifies the timeline (January to April 2025) and work packages, including mentoring 68 startups, securing 300,000 USD in grants, and developing a founder portal. The total request of 82,667 USDT is based on a monthly rate of 20,666.66 USDT. However, it lacks a granular budget breakdown, with no cost allocation for specific activities, reducing transparency and traceability of resource use.

Justification

Clear timelines and defined work packages provide some structure, but the lack of detailed budget allocation prevents a comprehensive assessment of cost efficiency. This shortfall is significant for ensuring traceability, particularly for a retroactive funding model.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal establishes robust success criteria through metrics: mentoring 68 startups, securing 300,000 USD in grants (240,000 USD from Web3 Foundation, 60,000 USD from PBA-X), and developing a functional founder portal. These quantifiable achievements enable evaluation of past work, supported by endorsements from Web3 Foundation and Polkadot Blockchain Academy leaders. However, long-term criteria, such as startup follow-on funding, are absent.

Justification

The metrics provide a strong basis for evaluating past performance, meeting the needs of a retroactive proposal. The lack of long-term success indicators slightly limits future evaluation, but the immediate criteria are well-defined and verifiable.

Score: 8/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal serves as a detailed report, documenting activities like mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants, with outcomes partially verifiable via Web3 Foundation announcements. A confidential tracking sheet is referenced, but its restricted access limits public scrutiny. Endorsements from ecosystem leaders add credibility, though no ongoing reporting or audit plans are specified, which is less critical for retroactive funding.

Justification

The proposal and verifiable outcomes offer solid documentation, with external validation enhancing traceability. The confidentiality of some data and lack of future reporting plans slightly reduce transparency, but the retroactive context mitigates the need for ongoing reports.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

PolkaBiz has made significant, verifiable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem. From January to April 2025, they screened over 100 startup applications and mentored 68 startups across programs like the Web3 Foundation Founders Program (44 startups), PBA-X Wave 1 (30 startups), and PBA Campus Program (25 startups). They facilitated 300,000 USD in grants, with 8 startups securing 240,000 USD from the Web3 Foundation and 3 securing 60,000 USD via PBA-X. Additionally, they developed a founder portal for project onboarding and guided G6Networks, a Web2 company, into Web3, resulting in a government MOU. These contributions are traceable through grant announcements and endorsements from Tim Dobie, David Hawig, and Dr. Radha Dasari.

Justification

The proposal details specific metrics, such as startups mentored and grants secured, which are partially verifiable via Web3 Foundation announcements (e.g., Wave 25 grants). Endorsements from ecosystem leaders provide further validation. The confidential startup list slightly limits full traceability, but aggregated data and public records ensure substantial evidence of impact.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

PolkaBiz has successfully implemented key projects within Polkadot. Their mentorship programs include the Web3 Foundation Founders Program, where 44 startups were screened and 8 secured 240,000 USD in grants; PBA-X Wave 1, mentoring 30 startups with 3 securing 60,000 USD; and PBA Campus Program, supporting 25 startups with 60,000 USD in grants under discussion. They developed a functional founder portal prototype to streamline project onboarding. Additionally, they onboarded G6Networks to Web3, leading to a government MOU for blockchain services, showcasing their ability to deliver impactful initiatives.

Justification

The proposal provides measurable outcomes for each project, such as grant amounts and startup numbers. The portal’s prototype status and the MOU are documented achievements, supported by ecosystem endorsements. The detailed results demonstrate successful implementation, though the portal’s non-public status slightly limits verification.

Score: 8/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

PolkaBiz’s credibility is supported by multiple public references. Endorsements from Tim Dobie (Polkadot Blockchain Academy), David Hawig (Web3 Foundation), and Dr. Radha Dasari (Web3 Foundation) highlight their contributions. Community feedback on Polkassembly is constructive, with users like SIM-DOT and TheMvpO7 asking about operations and receiving transparent responses from PolkaBiz. A video testimonial from SplitSafe’s founder showcases mentorship impact. Web3 Foundation grant announcements (e.g., Wave 25) verify funded startups. While code repositories or publications are absent, these references provide substantial credibility.

Justification

The endorsements and community engagement on governance platforms demonstrate public trust. Grant announcements offer verifiable evidence, though the confidential startup list limits some transparency. The absence of code repositories is less critical for a mentorship-focused proposal, making the available references sufficient.

Score: 8/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

PolkaBiz has proven their capability by delivering the proposed outcomes, as the proposal seeks retroactive funding for completed work. They mentored 68 startups, secured 300,000 USD in grants, and developed a founder portal prototype from January to April 2025. These achievements are backed by endorsements from ecosystem leaders and positive community feedback on Polkassembly. The team’s ability to deliver is evident, having fulfilled their commitments with measurable results.

Justification

The retroactive nature ensures outcomes are already delivered, with metrics like startups mentored and grants secured confirming success. Endorsements and community support further validate their capability. No evidence suggests inability to deliver, making their track record robust for this proposal.

Score: 10/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 35/40 | Average: 8.75/10 (88%)