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

Polkadot Community Foundation - Polkadot App - Treasury Funding #01

Track: 34 | Origin: BigSpender | Amount: 1.029.730 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

The proposers aim to secure the development, market launch, and operation of the official, beginner-friendly Polkadot App for at least six months.

Ecosystem Impact

An official, user-friendly wallet app is essential for onboarding new users and ensuring the sustainable adoption of Polkadot.

Proposed Action

The PCF requests a one-time Treasury grant of $1,029,514 for software development, operations, marketing, legal, and tools to launch and further develop the Polkadot App by October 2025.

Expected Outcomes

The proposal anticipates a significant improvement in user onboarding, increased DOT adoption, and a strengthened Polkadot community through a centralized, official app.

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal addresses Polkadot’s long-term development and adoption by aiming to establish an official, beginner-friendly app as a central onboarding tool. The app is intended to significantly simplify access to Polkadot for new users, thereby broadening the user base. Its relevance to the ecosystem stems from the goal of lowering entry barriers and positioning the Polkadot brand as user-friendly. However, the proposal lacks specific metrics to measure long-term impact, and it remains unclear how the app will be sustainably developed and maintained after the initial funding period. The integration with existing infrastructure and differentiation from other wallets are insufficiently outlined, posing a risk that the app may not achieve the desired network effect.

Justification

The initiative has the potential to enhance Polkadot’s adoption and relevance by providing a centralized, official app. However, the absence of clear success indicators, insufficient plans for sustainable development, and overlap with existing solutions diminish its measurable long-term impact.

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?

In the long term, the Polkadot App could become a central, trusted wallet, serving as a sustainable asset for the community. It has the potential to standardize user experiences and enable consistent onboarding. However, there are no reliable commitments to ensure maintenance, further development, or funding beyond the initial six months. Without a clear sustainability and community engagement strategy, there is a risk that the app will lose relevance or become inadequately maintained after the funding period.

Justification

The project has the potential to create sustainable value if the app is maintained and developed long-term. However, the lack of robust plans for the post-funding period limits the sustainable benefit.

Score: 5/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal addresses the structural weakness that Polkadot currently lacks an officially supported, beginner-friendly wallet solution to serve as a standard for onboarding and user guidance. Existing wallets, while functionally robust, are not perceived as official ecosystem products and are often too complex for beginners. The proposal seeks to fill this gap. However, it remains unclear whether the new app will be widely accepted as a standard or successfully integrated with existing solutions. The risk of fragmentation and lack of user adoption is not adequately mitigated.

Justification

The initiative targets a genuine structural weakness but does not convincingly demonstrate how acceptance and integration within the existing ecosystem will be ensured.

Score: 7/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal focuses on user onboarding and simplifying access to Polkadot, which could promote user retention. However, it lacks explicit statements or technical roadmaps regarding interoperability or support for parachain development. Integration with existing parachains and other wallets is not detailed. Without clear interfaces or open standards, it is uncertain to what extent the app will contribute to interoperability or support parachain development.

Justification

The project could enhance user retention, but its contribution to interoperability and parachain development is insufficiently substantiated or planned.

Score: 4/10

■Sources

■Result category 1

Total score: 22/40 | Average: 5.50/10 (55%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The proposal was submitted under the “BigSpender” track, which, according to current OpenGov parameters, is designated for expenditures up to 1,000,000 DOT. The requested amount is $1,029,514. At the current exchange rate of approximately $7.20 per DOT (as of May 18, 2025), this equates to about 143,000 DOT. Thus, the requested amount is well below the permissible limit for the BigSpender track and exceeds the limit for MediumSpender (up to 100,000 DOT), making BigSpender the correct choice. Substantively, it is clearly a Treasury expenditure for an infrastructure project aimed at promoting and developing the Polkadot ecosystem. The choice of track and origin is therefore appropriate and compliant.

Justification

Both the requested amount and the substantive focus of the proposal align with the requirements for the BigSpender track, making the choice of track and origin correct and compliant.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Several prior Treasury proposals share comparable content, particularly in the areas of wallet development and infrastructure support. Notable examples include funding for Nova Wallet, Talisman, and SubWallet, which have repeatedly requested and received funds for development, maintenance, and user acquisition. Outcomes varied: Nova Wallet and Talisman are regarded as established, feature-rich wallets with broad user bases, but some proposals faced criticism for fund usage, lack of milestones, and unclear success criteria. Additionally, the closely related Proposal #1082, which addressed the transfer of IP and the release of the Polkadot App to the PCF, was approved. Overall, historical data shows that comparable proposals are generally approved but often spark intense discussions about budget size, transparency, and sustainability.

Justification

Numerous comparable proposals exist, and their approval and implementation indicate that such funding is common in the Treasury context, though the community increasingly emphasizes transparency and sustainable impact.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is meaningfully utilized with this proposal, as it addresses a significant infrastructure project with broad ecosystem impact. Submission under the BigSpender track is appropriate for the scale and aligns with governance principles, which require transparent discussion and broad community participation for large expenditures. However, the increasing number of similar proposals in wallet and infrastructure development is placing growing demands on the governance system, particularly through recurring debates about budget size, transparency, and sustainability. Nevertheless, the usage remains within governance rules and does not constitute an overburden.

Justification

The proposal uses governance structures appropriately and for a legitimate purpose, though the accumulation of similar proposals could lead to increased strain and discussions about prioritization in the medium term.

Score: 8/10

■Sources

■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 requested amount of $1,029,514 for six months of development, operations, marketing, and legal is very high compared to other Treasury proposals in the Polkadot ecosystem, especially considering that the majority of the budget is allocated to software development. While developing an official, beginner-friendly app is fundamentally important, the proposal lacks concrete, reliable evidence of the expected benefit, such as verifiable KPIs, user growth forecasts, or clear differentiation from existing solutions. The amount is therefore not clearly proportionate to the demonstrated or projected value, especially since comparable wallet projects have achieved broad user bases with smaller budgets.

Justification

The cost-benefit ratio is questionable given the high amount and lack of evidence for direct, measurable value. Proportionality is only partially justified.

Score: 4/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Compared to other Treasury proposals for wallet and infrastructure projects in the Polkadot ecosystem, this proposal’s budget is exceptionally high. According to Treasury reports, total funding for wallet development over recent years amounted to approximately $6.4 million, distributed across multiple projects and periods. Individual comparable wallet projects like Nova Wallet or Talisman received significantly smaller amounts per funding period. This proposal exceeds the typical scale for a six-month funding period without being justified by a clear innovation leap or exceptional additional benefits.

Justification

The budget is disproportionately high compared to similar proposals and is only moderately justifiable.

Score: 4/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The proposal promises an official, beginner-friendly Polkadot App to simplify onboarding and strengthen the Polkadot brand. The specific value for the network lies in the potential increase in user numbers and improved user experience. However, it is unclear how significant these effects will be, as there are no reliable forecasts, success criteria, or sustainable strategies for post-funding development. The specific benefit to the Treasury is present but insufficiently quantified or supported by hard data.

Justification

The value is recognizable but not sufficiently specified or backed by reliable data.

Score: 5/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not indicate whether cheaper alternatives were evaluated. There are no references to cost comparisons with existing wallet projects, potential synergies through collaborations, or the use of existing open-source solutions. A modular, phased funding approach with clear milestones and success metrics was not proposed. Given the number of existing wallets in the Polkadot ecosystem, evaluating cheaper or more efficient alternatives should have been mandatory.

Justification

The failure to consider cheaper alternatives is a significant weakness and speaks against efficient fund usage.

Score: 2/10

■Sources

■Result category 3

Total score: 15/40 | Average: 3.75/10 (38%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal provides a detailed budget breakdown and clearly identifies the main expenditure categories, such as software development, operations, marketing, legal, and tooling. However, it lacks specific KPIs, milestones, or verifiable metrics to objectively measure progress and success. There are no quantified targets for user growth, adoption, or other relevant success indicators. The communication is limited to general objectives and a rough budget structure, without enabling evidence-based success monitoring.

Justification

The purpose of the funds is generally understandable, but the absence of KPIs and milestones prevents transparent and objective success measurement.

Score: 4/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal includes a detailed budget breakdown and clearly defines the funding period from May to October 2025. However, the individual work packages and their specific contents remain vague. There are no detailed roadmaps, timelines for specific deliverables, or a breakdown into verifiable work steps. Transparency regarding planned activities is thus only partially provided.

Justification

Budget and timeline are clear, but the lack of granularity in work packages and schedules significantly limits traceability.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal does not specify concrete success criteria or targets that would enable a later evaluation. There are no defined quantitative or qualitative benchmarks to allow an objective assessment of project success. This lack of criteria is a critical gap for evidence-based follow-up.

Justification

Without clearly defined success criteria, a later evaluation of the project is not feasible.

Score: 2/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal generally expresses a willingness for ongoing communication and reporting but makes no binding commitments to specific reporting formats, intervals, or the publication of documentation and audit reports. It remains unclear whether and how regular progress reports, budget reports, or technical documentation will be provided. The planning for documentation and reporting is thus insufficiently concrete.

Justification

The intent to communicate is present, but the lack of binding, verifiable commitments and structures is a weakness.

Score: 3/10

■Sources

■Result category 4

Total score: 14/40 | Average: 3.50/10 (35%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) is an officially recognized entity established in January 2024 through a governance referendum with broad approval. It was created to serve as a legal bridge for Treasury projects requiring off-chain implementation or contracts. The PCF has primarily undertaken organizational and administrative tasks, such as acquiring the IP for the Polkadot App (Referendum #1082) and managing Treasury funds. Autonomous Projects, the team behind the PCF, acts as an administrator but has not yet distinguished itself as a development team or technical service provider with publicly verifiable software contributions in the Polkadot ecosystem. Verifiable contributions are limited to administrative and structural efforts, not concrete technical innovations or open-source developments.

Justification

The organization has a proven role in the ecosystem but has not yet published directly verifiable technical contributions or open-source work.

Score: 5/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The PCF has primarily provided the legal and administrative infrastructure for Treasury projects. The most significant completed project is the acquisition of IP and preparation for the release of the Polkadot App, as documented in Referendum #1082. Beyond this, there are no indications of other successfully completed projects, particularly no independent software developments or major community initiatives directly implemented by the PCF. Autonomous Projects has so far acted solely as an administrator for the PCF and not as a developer or operator of technical solutions.

Justification

Successfully implemented projects are limited to administrative and organizational achievements, not technical or productive deliverables.

Score: 4/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

There are no publicly accessible code repositories or technical publications directly attributed to the PCF or Autonomous Projects. The organization’s credibility rests primarily on the governance decision to establish the PCF and the associated broad community approval. On Polkassembly and within the community, the PCF is recognized as necessary legal infrastructure, but there are also critical voices regarding transparency, operational experience, and technical capability. Broad, verifiable support through open-source references or technical publications is lacking.

Justification

The reputation is based on governance decisions and administrative recognition, not publicly verifiable technical references.

Score: 4/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

According to its own statements, the Autonomous Projects team has extensive experience in Web3, legal, operations, and Treasury management. The PCF has demonstrated its ability to successfully handle complex administrative tasks and governance processes. However, there are no publicly documented records of successfully managing comparable large-scale technical projects or leading major software developments. The technical implementation of the Polkadot App will reportedly be primarily handled by external service providers like Novasama, which generally improves the prospects for success but also creates dependencies. Overall, the team is administratively competent, but its ability to independently deliver a technically complex project remains unproven.

Justification

Administrative competence is proven, but technical implementation competence is insufficiently substantiated due to a lack of references and proven project success.

Score: 5/10

■Sources

■Result category 5

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