Summary

1. About this Report
2. Referendum-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. Sources
5. Evaluation
6. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze OpenGov proposals as objectively and transparently as possible, and to evaluate them based on the central question:

Does the proposal contribute to Polkadot’s long-term success?

The expert personas shown here are completely fictional and AI-generated. The portraits, names, backgrounds, and credentials are created using artificial intelligence. These personas do not represent real people or actual institutional affiliations. This tool serves as a framework for structured Polkadot governance proposal analysis. For research and the creation of SWOT and stakeholder analyses, we use: Perplexity Enterprise | Mode: Research | Web, Academic, Social, Finance, Wiley. For the creation of the final analysis, we use: Claude Pro | Opus 4.1 | Mode: Advanced Reasoning | Research | Web Search

Referendum-Info

Title: RegionX Hub: Retroactive + Key Features + Maintenance

Track: 32 | Origin: SmallSpender | Amount: 65.600 USDC

Status: Rejected

Summary of the proposal

- This is an updated plan for RegionX.
- It replaces an earlier proposal after listening to feedback.
- The new plan focuses on the most important tasks.
- It includes work already done, new features, and costs for data services.
- It also prepares for upcoming Polkadot network upgrades.
- The secondary marketplace for Polkadot will be added later when there's more demand.
- Because the secondary market is not included now, the cost is much lower.
- A link to the full proposal is provided for more details.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

RegionX Hub represents critical infrastructure for Polkadot's Agile Coretime model, which fundamentally transformed how computational resources are allocated on the network starting in 2024 according to the Agile Coretime documentation on Polkadot Wiki. By providing a secondary marketplace with order book functionality and tools for parachain management, RegionX directly addresses structural limitations in the primary Coretime chain that only offers entire 28-day core allocations, enabling projects to purchase fractional Coretime and reducing deployment costs substantially as detailed in Referendum 582 approved in 2024. The team's consistent ahead-of-schedule delivery on previous milestones and development of essential infrastructure like cross-chain region transfers demonstrates measurable contribution to ecosystem resilience and the viability of Polkadot 2.0's core value proposition.

Score: 9/10

■Question 2 of 19

2. What sustainable added value does the proposal bring to the Polkadot ecosystem in the long term, beyond the immediate project duration?

The RegionX Hub creates enduring network effects by establishing marketplace infrastructure that becomes more valuable as adoption increases, following the pattern documented in their order-book and crowdfunding models published on Medium in 2024. The platform enables sustainable cost reduction for both existing parachains transitioning from slot auctions and new projects, with tools like the parachain management dashboard and renewal tracking providing ongoing utility beyond initial development as evidenced in Referendum 796 which received 3.28K DOT approval with 80 Aye versus 3 Nay votes. By facilitating a competitive marketplace of Coretime traders and providing essential data tracking through RegionX Hub's dashboard interfaces, the infrastructure creates self-sustaining economic activity that reduces dependence on treasury funding over time while supporting the entire parachain ecosystem's operational needs.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

3. Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

RegionX directly addresses the critical structural weakness identified in Polkadot RFC-1 and RFC-5 regarding Coretime flexibility, specifically that the Coretime chain cannot support smart contracts and only offers inflexible 28-day full-core allocations as documented in the RegionX GitHub repository at RegionX-Labs. Without secondary marketplace infrastructure, the new Agile Coretime model's theoretical benefits remain largely inaccessible to most projects, risking underutilization of Polkadot's computational resources and high barriers to entry for new builders. The team solved the complex cross-chain NFT metadata transfer problem to enable region trading across chains, developed decentralized procurement mechanisms allowing parachains to autonomously acquire Coretime without centralized control, and created visibility tools preventing parachains from accidentally stopping due to expired Coretime.

Score: 9/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The proposal significantly promotes parachain development by reducing both deployment and operational costs through fractional Coretime purchases and secondary market price discovery, as evidenced by the first historic Coretime slot selling for 69 DOT on RegionX in October 2024 according to Polkadotters Weekly News 148. RegionX Hub's unified interface for Coretime procurement, management, consumption tracking, and parachain registration simplifies the entire deployment workflow as detailed in the Coretime Marketplaces Guide on Polkadot Wiki. The crowdfunding order model reintroduces community participation similar to the slot auction crowdloan system while the marketplace's XCM-based cross-chain region transfers demonstrate practical interoperability implementation.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 34/40 | Average: 8.50/10 (85%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

Referendum 1762 requests 65,600 USDC which equals approximately 21,532 DOT at the current price of 3.0467 USD per DOT, substantially exceeding the SmallSpender track limit of 10,000 DOT by more than double according to Origins and Tracks documentation on the Polkadot Developer portal. The SmallSpender origin on Track 32 explicitly restricts treasury expenditures to a maximum of 10,000 DOT as confirmed in Polkadot OpenGov documentation, meaning this proposal fundamentally violates the track's spending authority regardless of content appropriateness. This represents a critical procedural error requiring either amount reduction to comply with SmallSpender limits or track escalation to MediumSpender which permits up to 100,000 DOT per the governance documentation, constituting a clear governance compliance failure that undermines the integrity of track-based spending controls.

Score: 2/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

RegionX has established precedent through two prior successful proposals with Referendum 582 for the Coretime marketplace and Referendum 796 requesting 3,280 DOT for retroactive RegionX Corehub parachain management which passed with 80 Aye votes versus only 3 Nay votes as documented on Polkassembly Referendum 796. However, Referendum 1762's request of 65,600 USDC representing approximately 21,532 DOT constitutes a 556 percent increase over their previous largest request of 3,280 DOT, establishing a concerning pattern of escalating funding requests without proportional scope justification. The dramatic funding increase from approximately 10,000 USD in Referendum 796 to 65,600 USDC in Referendum 1762 within the same retroactive plus features plus maintenance framework raises questions about cost control and project scoping discipline, particularly given the team's apparent unawareness that this amount violates the chosen track's spending limits.

Score: 3/10

■Question 7 of 19

7. Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The submission of a 21,532 DOT proposal on the SmallSpender track with its 10,000 DOT limit represents problematic governance system usage that either reflects fundamental misunderstanding of OpenGov track parameters or deliberate attempt to circumvent proper review thresholds. The OpenGov 2025 adjustments implemented through Referendum 1701 specifically reduced SmallSpender track capacity from 50 to 5 simultaneous proposals to decrease noise and increase accountability as documented in Polkadot Ecosystem Weekly Observations from August 2025, making improper track selection particularly burdensome given constrained voting bandwidth. This proposal consumes scarce SmallSpender capacity while requiring either rejection for track violation or emergency track change mid-referendum, both outcomes that waste community review resources and set negative precedent for governance discipline when the proposers should have selected MediumSpender track initially per established governance guidelines.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 7/30 | Average: 2.33/10 (23%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The request of 65,600 USDC equivalent to approximately 21,532 DOT represents a substantial 556 percent increase over RegionX's previous largest proposal of 3,280 DOT in Referendum 796, raising proportionality concerns despite RegionX Hub's demonstrated ecosystem value as critical Coretime infrastructure. While the platform provides essential functionality including region management, cross-chain transfers, renewal tracking, and parachain dashboards that existing parachains require, the dramatic cost escalation from 10,000 USD to 65,600 USD within comparable scope categories of retroactive plus features plus maintenance requires extraordinary justification. The funding level approaches costs typically associated with 6-12 month full development programs like ParaSpell XCM tools at 148,000 USD for 12 months or ReactiveDOT at 89,000 USD, yet lacks comparable scope documentation that would substantiate such costs for what appears to be incremental feature additions and maintenance of existing infrastructure.

Score: 4/10

■Question 9 of 19

9. Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Comparison against ecosystem funding norms reveals concerning positioning as the Q3 2025 Polkadot DAO recap shows typical infrastructure projects range from 50,000-150,000 USD for comprehensive 6-12 month development cycles while smaller maintenance and feature requests typically remain under 30,000 USD. RegionX's 65,600 USDC request positions at the upper boundary of maintenance-level funding without providing the detailed milestone-based breakdown, development hour accounting, or cost-per-deliverable transparency that characterizes well-structured proposals in this funding tier. The absence of granular budget justification prevents verification against best practices like Referendum 1641's ParaSpell proposal demonstrating 148,000 USD over 12 months with explicit cost breakdown or Referendum 1625's ReactiveDOT at 89,000 USD with detailed deliverable accounting, raising concerns about cost discipline particularly given the track limit violation suggesting insufficient proposal preparation.

Score: 3/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The Treasury gains critical risk mitigation infrastructure preventing parachain operational failures during Coretime transition as the RegionX GitHub repository documents capabilities including region partitioning, interlacing, transferring, core renewal automation, parachain registration, cross-chain region transfers, and marketplace access. However, much of this infrastructure was already delivered under previous funding including the 3,280 DOT Referendum 796 and earlier W3F grants, raising questions about whether 65,600 USDC represents new value creation or expensive maintenance of already-funded systems. The systemic resilience value extends beyond individual parachain utility comparable to analytics infrastructure like Substrate-etl Dune integration receiving 325K DOT in January 2024, though that proposal's scope encompassed comprehensive ecosystem-wide data indexing while RegionX serves the more limited Coretime marketplace segment, suggesting proportionality concerns when comparing value delivery against funding magnitude.

Score: 5/10

■Question 11 of 19

11. Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal documentation provides no evidence of alternative cost structure evaluation, consolidation exploration with complementary project Lastic which operates as the other active Coretime marketplace per Polkadot Wiki documentation, or assessment of whether existing bounty programs could subsidize costs. The 556 percent funding increase from Referendum 796's 3,280 DOT to this proposal's 21,532 DOT equivalent occurs without documented analysis of efficiency improvements, cost reduction strategies, or exploration of shared infrastructure approaches that could distribute development and maintenance costs across the broader Coretime ecosystem. The lack of cheaper alternative consideration combined with track limit violation suggests insufficient proposal preparation and cost optimization discipline, particularly concerning given that proper MediumSpender track submission would have required more rigorous justification of the funding magnitude against lower-cost implementation approaches.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

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

Based on RegionX's historical pattern documented in Referendum 796 on Polkassembly accessed October 24, 2025, the team consistently provides proposal links to Google Docs with detailed specifications and has demonstrated a practice of delivering milestone reports ahead of schedule. Their previous Referendum 582 for the Coretime marketplace on Polkassembly from 2023 included comprehensive technical documentation with clear project components including Core Market, Order Processor, and Reward System with specific deliverables, indicating an established pattern of detailed fund use communication. However, without direct access to Referendum 1762's specific proposal document during this research, verification that this proposal maintains the same standard of KPI and milestone specification cannot be independently confirmed, particularly critical given the 556 percent funding increase requiring proportionally greater transparency and accountability mechanisms.

Score: 6/10

■Question 13 of 19

13. Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

RegionX's Referendum 796 requested 3,280 DOT demonstrating appropriate previous track selection, while their Medium article titled RegionX CoreHub from 2025 demonstrates structured work package definition including XcRegions contract and CoreHub Region Dashboard components. However, the 65,600 USDC request in Referendum 1762 representing 21,532 DOT exceeds SmallSpender limits by 115 percent, suggesting either inadequate budget planning or insufficient understanding of governance parameters that raises concerns about overall proposal preparation rigor. The dramatic cost escalation from approximately 10,000 USD to 65,600 USD demands exceptional budget transparency including detailed hourly rate justifications, specific feature cost breakdowns, maintenance scope quantification, and clear differentiation between retroactive work already completed versus forward-looking development, none of which can be verified without access to the complete proposal documentation during this analysis.

Score: 4/10

■Question 14 of 19

14. Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

RegionX demonstrates technical success criteria through open-source GitHub presence at RegionX-Labs with repositories including RegionX marketplace contracts, CoretimeHub UI, Coretime-Mock testing infrastructure, and Corespace-Weigher monitoring tools. Their W3F grant application would typically include deliverables following W3F standards, and milestone delivery for Referendum 582 indicates documentation practices. However, the retroactive funding component of this 65,600 USDC proposal requires particularly rigorous success criteria definition to evaluate whether already-completed work justifies the substantial requested compensation, especially given the 556 percent increase from previous proposals necessitates demonstrable quality improvements, expanded scope verification, or quantified impact metrics that substantiate the higher valuation of delivered infrastructure beyond the team's previous funding requests for comparable work categories.

Score: 5/10

■Question 15 of 19

15. Is documentation or reporting planned?

RegionX has demonstrated consistent reporting practices through milestone delivery reports for previous referenda including Google Doc ID 1BBOPxCO-feP0z5sGKfsmkonC1tov-xdvDfcUCxo92FY and active technical documentation at regionx.gitbook.io as cited in GitHub README. Their Medium publication RegionX CoreHub demonstrates public communication practices, and statements in Referendum 796 about completing the first milestone ahead of schedule establish proactive reporting precedent. However, the substantial 65,600 USDC funding magnitude representing 21,532 DOT demands enhanced reporting commitments beyond historical practices including detailed financial expenditure accounting, retroactive work validation documentation, interim progress reports at defined intervals, public cost-benefit post-mortems, and transparent milestone completion verification mechanisms that protect treasury interests given the proposal's track limit violation suggesting insufficient governance preparation discipline.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 4

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

■Question 16 of 19

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

RegionX Labs has established a documented track record of ecosystem contributions through their active GitHub organization hosting multiple repositories including the core RegionX marketplace, CoretimeHub, RegionX-Node, and Coretime-Mock testing frameworks accessible at github.com/RegionX-Labs. The team received a Web3 Foundation grant for their initial development work with documentation indicating completion of their first milestone ahead of the estimated schedule as explicitly stated in Referendum 796 on Polkadot Polkassembly. Team member Sergej Sakac authored a technical Medium article titled RegionX CoreHub: A central hub for managing Polkadot Blockspace detailing the implementation of XcRegion smart contracts and CoreHub UI components delivered under their W3F grant milestone, establishing verifiable technical contribution patterns through public repositories and documented delivery.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

17. What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

RegionX Labs has successfully delivered two treasury-funded projects prior to Referendum 1762 with Referendum 582 for the Coretime marketplace passing with 115 Aye votes versus 31 Nay votes establishing the order book model marketplace for trading Coretime regions on Polkadot Polkassembly. Referendum 796 for the RegionX Corehub parachain management UI secured 3,280 DOT with 80 Aye votes versus 3 Nay votes on Polkadot Polkassembly. The team's W3F grant deliverables included the XcRegion ink! smart contract for cross-chain region transfers and the CoreHub UI for region dashboard, partitioning, interlacing, transferring, and task assignment functionalities all documented in their technical publications and GitHub repositories, demonstrating consistent delivery capability across multiple funding sources and governance mechanisms.

Score: 9/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

The RegionX GitHub organization at github.com/RegionX-Labs provides open access to their technical work including repositories for RegionX marketplace, CoretimeHub, RegionX-Node, and testing infrastructure with their W3F grant proposal linked in their organization profile. Community validation is evidenced through strong voting support on previous referenda with Referendum 582 achieving 78.8 percent approval rate and Referendum 796 achieving 96.4 percent approval rate demonstrating consistent community confidence. Technical documentation is publicly available through their GitBook wiki at regionx.gitbook.io and Medium publications with Sergej Sakac's technical article documenting milestone deliverables, though the track limit violation in Referendum 1762 raises questions about whether governance expertise matches technical capabilities given apparent unfamiliarity with fundamental OpenGov spending parameters that undermines overall project management credibility.

Score: 7/10

■Question 19 of 19

19. Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

RegionX Labs has demonstrated delivery capacity through early completion of their W3F grant first milestone explicitly documented in their Referendum 796 proposal and successful deployment of complex blockchain infrastructure including cross-chain XCM integration for region NFT transfers and comprehensive TypeScript-based UI. The team's technical competency is well-established through ahead-of-schedule delivery and high community approval rates of 96.4 percent for Referendum 796. However, the 556 percent funding increase from 3,280 DOT to 21,532 DOT equivalent combined with track limit violation raises concerns about project scoping discipline, budget estimation accuracy, and governance process understanding that suggest potential gaps in financial management and proposal preparation capabilities despite strong technical execution, particularly problematic when teams scale from small grants to larger treasury requests requiring enhanced operational rigor beyond pure development skills.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 32/40 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)