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

AIWeb3 Chinese Unit(爱Web3 中文社区) renew operation May. 2025 - April. 2026

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 185.240 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

AIWeb3 seeks funding to continue decentralized Web3 education and community-building for the Chinese-speaking Polkadot community.

Ecosystem Impact

It enhances Polkadot’s global reach by engaging the Chinese-speaking audience, filling gaps left by PolkaWorld.

Proposed Action

AIWeb3 requests 185,240 USDT for 12 months to produce 600 contents, 96 videos, 60 Twitter Spaces, 52 reports, and a merchandise platform.

Expected Outcomes

Increased engagement, better education, and enhanced visibility for Polkadot projects, with potential sustainability via merchandise and tipping.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal contributes to Polkadot’s long-term development by delivering 600 educational contents and 96 videos to onboard Chinese-speaking users, fostering adoption. Community engagement through 60 Twitter Spaces and organic growth (Telegram members from 3,384 to 6,688) supports resilience. However, the lack of specific KPIs, such as engagement rates or conversion metrics, limits measurability. Tools for parachains like Bifrost enhance relevance, but a 67,840 USDT budget discrepancy raises execution concerns.

Justification

The focus on education and engagement aligns with adoption and resilience goals, evidenced by past community growth. However, vague metrics and budget transparency issues reduce confidence in quantifying impact, lowering the evaluation from prior optimism.

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 provides sustainable value through a lasting repository of educational content accessible post-funding, aiding user onboarding. The engaged community may persist organically, as shown by prior growth without funding. The merchandise platform could generate revenue, but its unproven viability and reliance on token-based purchases introduce uncertainty. Lack of alternative revenue strategies beyond tipping limits financial sustainability.

Justification

Content and community engagement offer enduring benefits, but the untested merchandise model and unclear monetization plans temper sustainability, warranting a cautious evaluation compared to earlier assessments.

Score: 6/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal effectively addresses the gap in Chinese-language support following PolkaWorld’s cessation in 2023. By providing localized content, bilingual bots, and events tailored to the Chinese-speaking audience, it enhances Polkadot’s inclusivity and accessibility, ensuring continued engagement in a key demographic previously underserved.

Justification

The clear focus on filling PolkaWorld’s void is a strong response to a recognized weakness, supported by AIWeb3’s track record. This maintains the high evaluation from prior analysis, as no new contrary evidence emerged.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal promotes user retention through regular Twitter Spaces and AMAs, keeping the community engaged. It supports parachain development by providing bots for Bifrost and Centrifuge and promoting projects like Acala via content. Interoperability is only indirectly addressed through general education about Polkadot’s features, lacking specific content focused on cross-chain functionalities.

Justification

Strong support for retention and parachain development is evident, but the indirect approach to interoperability, lacking targeted content, justifies a slightly lower rating than previously assessed due to critical scrutiny.

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 unequivocally falls within the MediumSpender origin’s scope. Requesting 185,240 USDT, equivalent to approximately 44,636 DOT at a DOT price of 4.15 USD, it is well below the 100,000 DOT limit for MediumSpender. The activities, including 600 educational contents, 96 videos, and a merchandise platform, align with treasury-funded initiatives for ecosystem growth, matching the origin’s purpose for medium-scale spending to enhance Polkadot’s reach and engagement.

Justification

The MediumSpender origin supports proposals up to 100,000 DOT, with a 28-day decision period, as per OpenGov specifications. The calculated DOT equivalent confirms compliance, and the proposal’s focus on education and community-building fits treasury objectives. No discrepancies in origin classification were found, maintaining the highest evaluation from prior analysis.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Previous proposals with comparable content exist, notably AIWeb3’s Referendum #772, which was approved and executed, delivering on commitments like content creation and community growth. Referendum #1364, another AIWeb3 proposal, timed out without approval due to insufficient support. PolkaWorld, a similar initiative, had mixed outcomes, with some proposals funded but operations halted in 2023 due to funding issues, providing a relevant historical context for assessing this proposal’s potential.

Justification

AIWeb3’s mixed outcomes (#772 success, #1364 failure) demonstrate the governance system’s selective evaluation, relevant for contextualizing this proposal. PolkaWorld’s history, referenced in the proposal, underscores the ecosystem’s need for such initiatives but also highlights risks of funding dependency, supporting a strong but not maximum rating due to varied historical success.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully, as AIWeb3 leverages it to fund impactful ecosystem activities, supported by a track record of delivering on Referendum #772 and sustaining operations without funding from December 2024 to April 2025, growing Telegram members from 3,384 to 6,688. Monthly reports ensure accountability, and the merchandise platform aims for sustainability. However, a 67,840 USDT budget discrepancy raises transparency concerns, slightly suggesting a potential burden from repeated funding requests without clear financial independence.

Justification

AIWeb3’s proven delivery and transparency via reports indicate meaningful use, but the budget discrepancy, highlighted in prior analyses, and reliance on treasury funds temper the evaluation. The sustainability efforts mitigate concerns of overburdening, justifying a high but not perfect rating.

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 185,240 USDT request is partially proportionate to the benefits, given AIWeb3’s demonstrated success in growing the Chinese-speaking community, with Telegram members rising from 3,384 to 6,688 without funding. Deliverables, including 600 contents, 96 videos, and 60 events, promise enhanced user adoption and engagement. However, an unexplained 67,840 USDT, constituting 37% of the budget, significantly undermines confidence in the necessity of the full amount, as it lacks clarity on how it contributes to the proposed outcomes.

Justification

AIWeb3’s track record, including Referendum #772 execution and organic growth, supports the potential for impactful deliverables. Costs like 62.67 USDT per content are reasonable, but the 67,840 USDT discrepancy, potentially for operational expenses, is a critical transparency flaw. This issue, highlighted in prior analyses, justifies a lower rating than previously, reflecting heightened scrutiny of the high funding request.

Score: 6/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework is reasonable for the listed activities, with costs like 62.67 USDT per content, 150 USDT per video, and 300 USDT per weekly report aligning with web3 industry standards for content and community initiatives. However, the 67,840 USDT unexplained portion and lack of specific comparables from other Polkadot proposals, such as PolkaWorld’s past budgets, limit the ability to confirm competitiveness, tempering confidence in overall reasonableness.

Justification

The specified costs are plausible, supported by explicit proposal details and industry norms. Prior analyses confirmed these figures (e.g., 37,600 USDT for 600 contents), but the unexplained portion and absence of benchmarked proposals, as noted previously, necessitate caution. The rating increases to 7 from 5, reflecting verified budget details but acknowledging ongoing transparency concerns.

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 extensive educational content, including 600 contents and 96 videos, fostering user onboarding in the Chinese-speaking community. Community engagement through 60 Twitter Spaces and offline events drives retention, while tools for parachains like Bifrost and Centrifuge enhance ecosystem development. The merchandise platform, accepting tokens like LOVA, promotes brand visibility and could generate revenue, strengthening Polkadot’s regional presence and adoption.

Justification

These deliverables address critical ecosystem needs, filling the Chinese-language gap post-PolkaWorld’s 2023 cessation. AIWeb3’s growth (e.g., Discord from 9,520 to 9,962) and parachain support, as documented, validate impact. The merchandise platform’s potential, though unquantified, adds value. The rating remains 8, as prior clarifications reinforce the strong contribution despite metric limitations.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not address cheaper alternatives or cost-saving measures. It relies on paid rewards for creators and ambassadors, with no discussion of leveraging volunteers, existing Polkadot communities, or phased funding to reduce the 185,240 USDT request. Exploring such options could have optimized resources, especially given the significant unexplained budget portion.

Justification

Cost efficiency demands consideration of alternatives, as emphasized in prior analyses. The absence of discussion on volunteers or partnerships, despite a high funding request, is a notable weakness. The rating remains 3, as no new evidence suggests cost optimization was explored, aligning with the critical need for fiscal prudence.

Score: 3/10

■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 communicates fund usage by detailing activities like producing 600 original contents for 37,600 USDT, 96 videos for 14,400 USDT, and 60 community events for 30,000 USDT. However, it provides no measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), milestones, or metrics. Qualitative outcomes, such as "increased community engagement" or "improved knowledge sharing," lack quantifiable targets like target views or engagement rates, rendering evidence-based tracking nearly impossible. The unexplained 67,840 USDT further obscures fund allocation clarity.

Justification

Transparency demands specific, measurable indicators for fund usage and outcomes. The proposal’s detailed activity budgets are a partial strength, but the complete absence of KPIs, milestones, or metrics, as confirmed in prior critiques, prevents objective evaluation. The 67,840 USDT discrepancy, representing 37% of the budget, exacerbates this, as its purpose is undisclosed, leading to a lower rating than previously assessed due to heightened scrutiny.

Score: 2/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Budgets for activities totaling 117,400 USDT, such as 37,600 USDT for 600 contents and 15,600 USDT for 52 weekly reports, are specified, and a 12-month timeline is implied with monthly targets like 8 videos per month. Work packages, including content creation and events, are broadly outlined but lack detailed scope, such as content length or event formats. The 67,840 USDT unexplained portion, 37% of the total, significantly reduces transparency, obscuring a substantial part of the financial plan.

Justification

Clear specification requires comprehensive budgets, timelines, and work package details. The proposal provides partial clarity with allocated budgets and a timeline, but the unexplained 67,840 USDT, as highlighted in prior analyses, and vague work package descriptions, like undefined "original content," limit traceability. The rating remains at 5, acknowledging specified elements but penalizing critical gaps.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal provides only qualitative success criteria, such as "increased community engagement" and "quality content production," without any quantitative targets. No specific metrics, like percentage growth in community membership or minimum video views, are defined, making objective evaluation post-implementation unfeasible. This vagueness severely limits the ability to assess project success.

Justification

Success criteria must be measurable for evidence-based evaluation. The proposal’s reliance on qualitative outcomes, like "motivation for new members" or "stronger regional presence," without benchmarks, as confirmed in prior critiques, is a critical flaw. The absence of any quantitative targets, such as 10% Telegram growth, warrants a lower rating than previously, reflecting the total lack of evaluable criteria.

Score: 0/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not explicitly commit to documentation or reporting for the proposed activities. However, AIWeb3’s history of monthly reports for past funding, referenced for May to November 2024, strongly suggests they will continue this practice. The absence of a clear statement confirming ongoing reporting, including format or frequency, reduces assurance of planned documentation, though past reliability provides some confidence.

Justification

Traceability requires explicit reporting plans. AIWeb3’s track record of monthly reports, referenced in the proposal, is a significant strength, but the lack of a specific commitment for this project, as noted previously, is a notable gap. The rating remains at 6, balancing likely continuity with the need for explicit assurance, consistent with prior evaluations.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 13/40 | Average: 3.25/10 (33%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

AIWeb3 has made verifiable contributions to Polkadot, including supporting content creators, developing Discord and Telegram bots for parachain communities like Bifrost and Centrifuge, and deploying an appchain on Tanssi for Moonbeam. They publish content on Subsocial’s Grill and participated in Acala’s dApp contest. Dr. Cao served as a Kusama Decentralized Voice, evaluating proposals. These are traceable via their GitHub, YouTube, and monthly reports. However, the claim of supporting over 23 creators lacks independent verification, and community growth metrics are unvalidated, reducing traceability.

Justification

Contributions like bot development and parachain integrations are documented through public platforms and partnerships, ensuring partial verifiability. The Kusama DV role and content creation are traceable via forum posts and YouTube. However, prior critiques highlight unverified claims, such as the number of creators and Telegram growth, and inconsistencies (10 vs. 23 creators), lowering the rating from 9 to 7 due to incomplete traceability.

Score: 7/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

AIWeb3 successfully supported content creators, with channels like The Heart of Polkadot and Xiucai Finance producing Polkadot content, and grew their YouTube channel to a reported 23,000 followers. They developed Discord and Telegram bots with point systems and translations for Bifrost and Centrifuge, deployed a Tanssi appchain for Moonbeam, and created a Subsocial Grill space. Participation in Acala’s dApp contest and Dr. Cao’s Kusama Decentralized Voice role were completed. The InvArch DAO project failed due to platform discontinuation, not AIWeb3’s fault.

Justification

The projects demonstrate technical and content expertise, verified by public platforms and partnerships. The YouTube channel and parachain integrations are notable successes, though unquantified metrics, like bot usage or Tanssi impact, and the InvArch failure, as critiqued previously, reduce confidence. The rating lowers from 8 to 7, reflecting these gaps.

Score: 7/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

AIWeb3 provides public references, including their GitHub repository, website, X account, YouTube channel with reported 23,000 followers, and Subsocial Grill space. The Tanssi partnership and Kusama DV role are documented via official announcements and forum posts. Community feedback on Subsquare for Referendum #1545 includes concerns about overlaps and sustainability, with AIWeb3 responding partially. However, specific feedback for Referendum #772 is not detailed, and unverified metrics like follower counts reduce robustness.

Justification

The references are extensive, allowing verification of technical and content work. The partnership and forum posts add credibility, but limited visibility into community feedback and unverified metrics, as noted in prior critiques, lower the rating from 9 to 8. Partial responses to feedback on Subsquare further temper trust.

Score: 8/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

AIWeb3’s team demonstrates capability through executing Referendum #772, growing Telegram from 3,384 to 6,688 without funding from December 2024 to April 2025, and developing bots and content platforms. Their technical skills, shown in Tanssi and Subsocial integrations, and content expertise, with a 23,000-follower YouTube channel, align with producing 600 contents, 96 videos, and 60 events. However, transparency issues, like the 67,840 USDT budget discrepancy, lack of team structure, and unaddressed regulatory risks in China, raise concerns about execution reliability.

Justification

Past delivery and resilience indicate strong capability, but prior critiques highlight risks: no team organigram, potential dependence on Dr. Cao, and regulatory uncertainties. The unverified community growth and lack of audits further reduce confidence. The rating lowers from 8 to 6, reflecting these significant concerns despite proven skills.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 5

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