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

Google Drive Document Integrity and Certification System for Secure Proposals

Track: 32 | Origin: SmallSpender | Amount: 35.000 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The proposal aims to ensure the authenticity and immutability of proposal documents through automated certification and change tracking.

Ecosystem Impact

It bolsters confidence in the Polkadot governance process by adding an extra security layer against unauthorized document modifications.

Proposed Action

Develop an API-based solution with smart contract integration, PDF export, IPFS storage, hash generation, and an alert system, requiring funding of 35,000 USDT.

Expected Outcomes

Immutable document snapshots, a transparent audit trail of all revisions, and enhanced governance efficiency through automated verification.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The introduction of certified change tracking for proposal documents provides an additional layer of transparency but contributes only marginally to significantly strengthening Polkadot’s long-term development or adoption.

Justification

While blockchain-based certificates typically enhance document security and authenticity, this is a specific compliance function rather than a fundamental innovation within the ecosystem. Polkadot’s governance is already designed for openness and decentralization, primarily benefiting from voting mechanisms rather than external document certificates. Forum discussions on transparency in OpenGov emphasize process and reporting improvements over document-specific tools, resulting in an overall limited impact on adoption and resilience.

Score: 4/10

■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 system establishes a permanent, decentralized audit trail for proposal documents, which can serve as a reference for transparency and compliance in the governance process beyond individual projects.

Justification

IPFS-based storage ensures permanently immutable document snapshots, creating a consistent record of all versions. Polkadot forum posts highlight that verifiable updates and traceable histories are critical for maintaining long-term trust. Academic studies indicate that blockchain certificates promote sustainability in governance processes by providing a persistent audit trail, a benefit that persists post-project as documented records remain accessible. The “5 – partially fulfilled” rating reflects that while the proposed system creates a sustainable document history infrastructure, its value is limited to proposal integrity without broader structural improvements to the governance process or general user and parachain interoperability.

Score: 5/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

Yes, the lack of a native verification mechanism for the integrity and history of proposal documents in the OpenGov stack is specifically addressed.

Justification

Polkadot’s governance system currently lacks an integrated function to automatically verify changes to externally hosted proposal documents. The proposed smart contract and API solution fills this gap through cryptographic hash tracking and on-chain auditing. Comparable governance models prioritize native audit functions to prevent manipulation and enhance resilience, thus implementing a previously absent component for ensuring document integrity.

Score: 7/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

No, the proposal focuses solely on document certification and does not address cross-chain communication, direct parachain development, or specific user retention mechanisms.

Justification

Interoperability in the Polkadot ecosystem is primarily achieved through XCM and parachain-specific protocols, not governance document tools. User retention strategies focus on onboarding, UI/UX, and cross-chain experiences, whereas this proposal implements only a backend certification system. Parachain teams rely on their own SDKs and bridges, so an external document certificate has no impact on their development or interoperability.

Score: 2/10

■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)?

The proposal requests 35,000 USDT, equivalent to approximately 7,071 DOT at the current rate of about 4.95 USD/DOT, which is below the 10,000 DOT threshold of the SmallSpender track.

Justification

The current price of Polkadot (DOT) is 4.91 USD per DOT, making 35,000 USDT approximately 7,127 DOT. According to the OpenGov origins table, SmallSpender expenditures up to 10,000 DOT are permissible. The request of 7,127 DOT is well below this limit, confirming the SmallSpender origin was correctly chosen.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

There are no previous OpenGov referenda in the Polkadot ecosystem that aimed to implement systematic blockchain-based certification and change alert functions for proposal documents.

Justification

A review of all active and historical referenda reveals no other proposals focusing on document integrity checks using IPFS hash tracking and smart contract alerts. Discussions and Subsquare show no comparable proposals, confirming this issue has remained unaddressed. The only remotely related reference is in UX/bounty discussions on workflow improvements, but these lack the core aspect of document certification. While no directly comparable referendum exists, the proposal addresses an unresolved gap in the OpenGov stack by establishing a decentralized, persistent audit trail for proposal documents, delivering a solution that persists beyond the project duration. A score of 5 (“partially fulfilled”) acknowledges the novelty and potential without overstating the value, given that existing, cost-free workarounds (e.g., IPFS pinning) could be used.

Score: 5/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The use of the SmallSpender track for a document certification function is appropriate and does not disproportionately burden the governance system.

Justification

SmallSpender proposals are characterized by relatively low requirements for support and voting shares, designed for infrastructure topics below the 10,000 DOT threshold. The additional load from transactions for smart contract interactions and IPFS pinning remains manageable due to the limited number of certifications per proposal, integrating seamlessly into regular on-chain operations. The complexity and effort are thus within the scope of typical SmallSpender proposals.

Score: 7/10

■Sources

■Result category 2

Total score: 22/30 | Average: 7.33/10 (73%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The requested amount of 35,000 USDT is permissible within the SmallSpender framework but appears high at first glance compared to the core functionality—PDF export, IPFS pinning, and hashing—yet is justified by the scope of automation and integration: instead of manual workarounds, the system delivers a maintainable end-to-end process with on-chain verification and real-time alerts, significantly reducing ongoing personnel costs for manual processes and error sources.

Justification

Simple IPFS pinning can be achieved for free via services like Pinata or 4EVERLAND but requires ongoing manual uploads and separate audit processes. The proposed solution automates all steps—from PDF export to IPFS storage, on-chain hash verification, and notifications—eliminating repetitive, error-prone manual tasks. Market-standard development projects with comparable automation and integration scope typically range between 25,000 and 50,000 USD, placing the 35,000 USDT request in the mid-range economically for the provided functionality.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Somewhat comparable SmallSpender projects typically request between 1,000 and 5,000 DOT, and with approximately 7,070 DOT, this proposal is significantly above that range.

Justification

The current proposal, with 7,070 DOT, exceeds the median range of comparable integration projects.

Score: 3/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury gains a fully automated audit trail infrastructure for proposal documents for the first time, combining on-chain hash verification, PDF snapshots, and real-time notifications, thereby replacing manual verification processes and substantially strengthening governance compliance.

Justification

Discussions on “Improving Transparency in OpenGov” highlight the lack of reliable audit functions as a key weakness, calling for automated, decentralized proof of changes. The “OpenGov Accountability Checklists” underscore the high importance of verifiable, transparent workflows for proposal documentation. Integrating PDF snapshots and IPFS hashes on-chain reduces both auditor and legal costs, making decision-making processes significantly more robust.

Score: 7/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

Established, largely cost-free workarounds like manual IPFS pinning via Pinata’s free tier or a free 1 GB account exist but were not presented as the primary solution in the proposal.

Justification

Pinata offers a permanently free basic plan with up to 1 GB of storage and 500 files, requiring no credit card, allowing users to pin PDFs at no cost. Similarly, free self-hosted IPFS enables persistent storage with minimal infrastructure costs. These readily available alternatives were mentioned but not elaborated as primary, cost-saving options.

Score: 4/10

■Sources

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal outlines detailed milestones with responsible roles in section 2.4, a precise cost breakdown for each milestone in section 2.6, and defines quantitative and qualitative metrics as KPIs in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

Justification

Section “2.4 Milestones” lists all work packages with timeframes and required roles, and “2.6 Budget” specifies the itemized costs per milestone along with the total sum. In “3.1 Quantitative Metrics,” system availability, test coverage, and infrastructure stability are identified as measurable indicators, while “3.2 Qualitative Metrics” describes code reviews, architecture assessments, developer feedback, and documentation completeness.

Score: 9/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

Budgets, timelines, and work packages are clearly specified, with detailed costs and tasks.

Justification

The proposal includes a detailed budget breakdown, allocating 36,800 EUR (approximately 40,480 USD) across nine milestones, with costs ranging from 1,600 EUR to 8,000 EUR and a total of 920 hours at 40 EUR per hour. Each milestone is linked to specific work packages, such as requirements analysis (40 hours), smart contract development (160 hours), or API integration (200 hours), clearly defining the tasks. Timelines are provided in weeks, e.g., 1 week for requirements analysis or 5 weeks for API integration. The work packages are technically precise, e.g., using Solidity for smart contracts or Node.js for the backend, making operational implementation transparent.

Score: 8/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Yes, the proposal defines success criteria in sections 3.1 and 3.2 in the form of quantitative and qualitative metrics to evaluate project progress and system quality.

Justification

Quantitative metrics include system availability, code quality (test coverage, security compliance), and infrastructure stability (performance, reliability), while qualitative metrics encompass code reviews, architecture and scalability assessments, developer experience feedback, and documentation completeness.

Score: 9/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The plan includes publishing a technical report every two weeks after each milestone, updating the public GitHub repository, and creating comprehensive project documentation in milestone 2.4.9.

Justification

Section 3.3 outlines a biweekly communication cycle with technical status reports and repository updates, and milestone 2.4.9 includes the creation of complete code comments, API documentation, and user manuals.

Score: 9/10

■Sources

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

The organization Open 4 Blockchain has provided a blockchain certification tool through its brand Zerchain and invested in various Web3 projects via O4Ventures but lacks clearly documented on-chain contributions in the Polkadot network.

Justification

The website presents Zerchain as a partner for blockchain certifications and lists products for NFT marketplaces, tokenization solutions, and Filecoin mining. Within the Polkadot ecosystem, the associated address has only submitted this single proposal, with no other governance or development contributions.

Score: 4/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Open 4 Blockchain lists several completed initiatives on its website, including Zerchain for document certification, NotForTrends as an NFT platform, Tokenfy as a tokenization “Shopify,” as well as Filecoin mining and wallet authentication tools.

Justification

Under “Products,” the website clearly outlines offerings: Zerchain for blockchain-based certification, NotForTrends for NFT creation and trading, Tokenfy as a tokenization marketplace, and additional projects like Filecoin mining and wallet authentication. Specific success metrics (e.g., user numbers or transaction volume) are not disclosed.

Score: 6/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

No publicly accessible GitHub repositories or academic publications exist, and community feedback on Open 4 Blockchain is scarce, with only a LinkedIn presence mentioned without specific project links.

Justification

Despite extensive searches, no code repositories or scholarly publications directly linked to Open 4 Blockchain were found. A LinkedIn profile is referenced on the website but provides no further details on completed projects or open-source contributions. Feedback from third parties is nearly absent in forums and governance platforms.

Score: 3/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The listed team profiles indicate experienced technology and blockchain developers, but the lack of verifiable work samples and detailed technical documentation limits the ability to confirm delivery capability.

Justification

The role descriptions (CEO, CTO, Lead, and Full-Stack Developer) suggest a competent team, but apart from the product list, there are no detailed whitepapers, code demos, or audit reports to substantiate successful implementation of past projects. Without tangible reference implementations, actual performance capability is difficult to assess.

Score: 5/10

■Sources

■Result category 5

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