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

Texas Blockchain Council: Re-up and continued presence for Polkadot

Track: 32 | Origin: SmallSpender | Amount: 50.000 USDC

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

Judge Lucich is requesting 100,000 USDC from the Polkadot Treasury to sustain representation in the Texas Blockchain Council (TBC) and bolster Polkadot’s influence on U.S. blockchain policy.

Ecosystem Impact

This proposal is relevant because it could foster regulatory clarity and enhance visibility in the U.S., supporting parachain development and adoption.

Proposed Action

Lucich proposes allocating 50,000 USDC for TBC membership and 50,000 USDC for one year of advocacy work to influence legislation, cultivate partnerships, and launch pilot projects, with no explicit repayment obligations.

Expected Outcomes

The proposal targets strengthened legislative influence, pilot projects (e.g., JAM integrations), and broader U.S. visibility to reinforce Polkadot’s position as a Web3 frontrunner.

■Question 1 of 19

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

This proposal establishes an institutional bridge between Polkadot and key U.S. legislators through continued representation in the Texas Blockchain Council, with the potential to reduce regulatory barriers and thereby strengthen the network’s long-term adoption and relevance.

Justification

The Texas Blockchain Council partners closely with the Texas Innovation and Technology Caucus, delivering expert knowledge directly to lawmakers to shape blockchain-friendly regulations. A stable, legally clear environment is essential for widespread deployment of parachain solutions and Web3 applications, enhancing network resilience. Strategically aligned ecosystems that invest in enduring partnerships and political engagement demonstrably weather market cycles better over time, deepening developer participation and driving network growth.

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 expanding legislative networks, this initiative creates lasting infrastructure for pilot programs that will continue to guide regulatory frameworks beyond the 12-month funding period, laying the groundwork for multistate initiatives.

Justification

The Council’s press and impact reports show that established policy platforms multiply their effects when they maintain ongoing collaboration with technology providers, building durable educational and advocacy structures. A sustained advocacy presence can also spawn cross-sector working groups whose outputs serve as blueprints for subsequent projects, preserving the value created well after the funding term ends.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The request focuses primarily on political representation and does not tackle any of the previously identified technical or governance-related weaknesses within the Polkadot network.

Justification

The “2025 Polkadot Strategic Development Report” cites core platform weaknesses—such as network performance and decentralized governance efficiency—that cannot be resolved through policy lobbying alone. This proposal offers no instrumental approaches to optimize XCM communication or improve the NPoS mechanism.

Score: 2/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

While regulatory clarity can indirectly benefit parachain development, the proposal includes no direct measures to advance XCM interoperability, user retention programs, or technical integrations.

Justification

Interoperability and developer retention require concrete technical upgrades and developer tooling—as outlined in “Polkadot 2.0: Weaving the Future of Blockchain Interoperability”—which the proposal does not address. The advocacy mandate targets policy frameworks, not the implementation or co-funding of parachain projects.

Score: 3/10

■Sources

■Result category 1

Total score: 18/40 | Average: 4.50/10 (45%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

At the current rate of 4.63 USD per DOT, the requested 100,000 USDC equals approximately 21,600 DOT, far exceeding the 10,000-DOT limit for the SmallSpender origin. Therefore, it properly belongs in the MediumSpender track, not SmallSpender.

Justification

Converting USDC to DOT at the prevailing market price of 4.63 USD per DOT yields about 21,600 DOT. The SmallSpender origin caps expenditures at 10,000 DOT, while up to 100,000 DOT fall under MediumSpender. Misclassifying this request circumvents the governance system’s spending limits.

Score: 0/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

A directly comparable proposal is Referendum #675, which also funded Polkadot’s continued membership in the Texas Blockchain Council. It requested 187,000 USDC (≈ 20,150 DOT) under the MediumSpender origin and passed with 99.6% approval, then was executed successfully.

Justification

Referendum #675 served the same purpose and requested a similar sum but was filed under the correct MediumSpender track, achieving 99.6% Aye votes at a 53.5% threshold and registering as “Executed.” The overwhelming approval and successful execution demonstrate that this use case has previously been accepted by the network.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

This referendum is a legitimate continuation of a previously completed MediumSpender project (#675), so the governance system is being used appropriately rather than unduly burdened.

Justification

Last year’s Referendum #675 successfully funded the Texas Blockchain Council membership and was executed, officially closing that project. Proposal #1553 builds directly on that completed mandate and represents the next funding cycle, not a duplicate. Because the prior project is closed and the new referendum covers a new period, decision-making capacity is not strained by multiple identical requests, aligning with the intended purpose of serial funding through separate referenda.

Score: 7/10

■Sources

■Result category 2

Total score: 15/30 | Average: 5.00/10 (50%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The 100,000 USDC request splits into 50,000 USDC for Council membership and 50,000 USDC for a full-time advocacy salary. The average salary for a legislative advocate in Texas is around 90,414 USD per year, making the compensation moderate; however, without solid ROI metrics, the total amount appears inflated relative to demonstrated results.

Justification

While the salary level is competitive, no evidence of concrete successes from the prior funding cycle is provided.

Score: 5/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Compared to last year’s referendum #675, which requested 170,000 USDC, the current ask of 100,000 USDC is significantly leaner, cutting 70,000 USDC in costs. The clear division between membership and salary is grounded in understandable line items and mirrors the structure of established OpenGov referenda. However, it lacks a detailed cost breakdown for activities like briefings or workshops that similar proposals sometimes include. Overall, the budget is reasonably sized compared to precedent.

Justification

Reducing the request by 41% demonstrates cost awareness, and the two-part structure follows industry standards. Greater granularity in individual line items would further enhance transparency.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

This referendum guarantees the treasury continuous access to policymakers through six targeted briefings per quarter, two parachain consultations per quarter, and at least one policy-relevant presentation per quarter. The established Executive Partnership with the Council enables direct vetting of Polkadot technologies in legislative proposals such as Texas House Bill 1043, opening concrete pilot opportunities for blockchain-based land registries. This strengthens the network’s positioning in the U.S. market.

Justification
Clearly defined KPIs ensure measurable touchpoints with stakeholders, and the embedded role in Council committees fosters long-term policy integration opportunities.

Score: 7/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal clarifies that the Executive Partnership membership is essential for the desired strategic influence and that no cheaper individual or startup tiers were viable, since only the executive level grants full committee access and leadership privileges. Travel expenses are to be covered by existing events bounties. Alternative consulting contracts or part-time advocacy models are not mentioned, though they could have been feasible given the scope of work.

Justification

Because only the Executive Partnership provides full access to board meetings and legislative working groups, lower tiers are not equivalent. The absence of a detailed daily activity plan makes it impossible to verify if a full-time role is necessary.

Score: 5/10

■Sources

■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 explicitly states that the 100,000 USDC will fund the Executive Partnership membership (50,000 USDC) and a full-time advocacy salary (50,000 USDC) and defines specific KPIs: six legislative briefings per quarter, two parachain consultations per quarter, and at least one policy-relevant presentation per quarter. While these performance indicators are set, formal milestones or time-bound deliverables beyond the quarterly cycle are not further specified.

Justification

The “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)” section outlines the quantitative activities the funding targets and establishes measurable metrics. The 12-month period is repeatedly noted and confirmed by the OG Tracker. Prior outcomes are summarized, providing contextual data on impact. However, a detailed timeline with date-specific milestones is missing, so the schedule is only broadly sketched across quarters.

Score: 6/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The budget is transparently split into membership fees and salary, and the overall period is defined as twelve months. Work packages are presented as activity blocks—briefings, workshops, pilot programs, and multistate outreach—but are not broken down into a structured project plan with sub-tasks or deadlines.

Justification

The “Core Activities and Deliverables” describe thematic work packages, such as developing a roadmap and coordinating events, without a detailed breakdown into individual tasks or timeframes.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal proposes clear quantitative success criteria, including the number of legislative briefings, parachain stakeholder events, presentations, and working group participations per quarter, as well as regular legislative reports. These count-based KPIs provide a solid foundation for later evaluation, although qualitative outcomes—such as actual law changes—are not listed as success criteria.

Justification

Under “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)” six briefings, two stakeholder touchpoints, one presentation, and one quarterly legislative report are set as standardized success criteria. The discussion on outcome metrics acknowledges that additional outcome-oriented measures—such as bills introduced or pilots completed—would be necessary.

Score: 6/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

Monthly community updates and quarterly reports are to be published and documented in public comments on Polkassembly, enabling ongoing tracking, though no specific platform or report template is mandated. Additionally, participation logs and scheduling overviews are recommended as documentation tools.

Justification

The text states that progress will be documented via comments on the proposal and monthly updates to keep the community informed. Suggestions for logs and a real-time dashboard are named as supplementary reporting measures. However, the precise structure of the reports remains open, lacking standardized templates to detail specific achievements, successes, and failures—leaving ample room for subjective presentation.

Score: 4/10

■Sources

■Result category 4

Total score: 21/40 | Average: 5.25/10 (53%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The proposer, Judge Lucich, is listed as a former Business Development Manager at Parity Technologies, demonstrating industry expertise. Polkassembly hosts quarterly reports and discussions on his prior Texas Blockchain Council proposal (#675), publicly documenting his contributions. He currently serves as Community Manager for the official Polkadot Discord, funded through the Marketing Bounty, and as a curator for the Polkadot Anti-Scam Team under OpenGov. These roles involve community engagement and security efforts that directly benefit the ecosystem. His advocacy is further evidenced by a presentation at the 2021 World Binance Forum, publicly available on YouTube.

Justification

LinkedIn confirms his role at Parity, Polkassembly shows qualitative discussions and feedback on his referenda and reports, and his activities at Parity, in Discord, and on the Anti-Scam Team are publicly traceable. The World Binance Forum talk adds further validation of his advocacy work. The Texas Blockchain Council’s contributions are primarily political rather than technical, slightly limiting impact scope. Overall, these facts support credible contributions, though their depth in technical or governance improvement is moderate.

Score: 7/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Under the previous 170,000 USDC funding for Polkadot’s representation in the Texas Blockchain Council—initiated by Yung Beef and continued by Zachary—several projects were launched, including contributions to a Texas bill for decentralized unincorporated associations, initial discussions with Texas authorities on a blockchain-based land registry, and educational initiatives with The Blockchain Academy. Polkadot secured speaking slots and a free booth at the North American Blockchain Summit 2024, boosting visibility. However, the final report notes that no concrete partnerships materialized, and initiatives like Energy Web integration and The Blockchain Academy project stalled, indicating partial success in advocacy and exposure but limited tangible results.

Justification

The quarterly reports note achievements in policy engagement and visibility—such as Summit presence and bill contributions—aligning with advocacy goals. Yet, the absence of finalized partnerships and the stalling of projects like Energy Web point to incomplete execution. While there were some impacts, the initiatives fell short of fully measurable outcomes, warranting cautious judgment of past performance.

Score: 5/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

Publicly accessible evidence includes quarterly reports of the prior TBC funding on Subsquare and Judge Lucich’s 2021 “Polkadot: a new standard” presentation on YouTube. Because the proposal focuses on advocacy rather than technical development, no code repositories are relevant. Community feedback on the current referendum page is mixed but not detailed enough to significantly bolster or undermine credibility.

Justification

The reports and YouTube presentation offer verifiable references supporting his advocacy experience. Mixed community comments exist but lack the depth to serve as robust credibility indicators. The absence of technical references is appropriate given the proposal’s scope.

Score: 6/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

Judge Lucich appears suited to deliver the proposed outcomes given his background in Parity Technologies’ Business Development team—where he forged partnerships—and his current roles as Polkadot Discord Community Manager and Anti-Scam Team curator. These positions demonstrate networking, advocacy, and stakeholder engagement skills critical for Texas Blockchain Council representation. The proposal sets clear goals like policy influence and visibility, with KPIs such as six legislative meetings per quarter. Nonetheless, prior TBC initiatives saw mixed results, suggesting possible execution challenges, though his detailed plan mitigates some concerns.

Justification

His business development and community management experience align well with the advocacy and policy objectives. The structured KPI framework inspires confidence in his operational ability. However, past TBC efforts under different leadership encountered hurdles—indicating external or execution risks. His expertise and clarity of plan suggest capability, yet past performance justifies a conservative evaluation.

Score: 6/10

■Sources

■Result category 5

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