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: Infrastructure Funding for Polkadot Asset Hub #4 - Maintenance & Continuation of Public good Polkadot NFT marketplace

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 180.000 USDC

Status: Deciding

Remaining Time: 25d 10h 46m

Summary of the proposal

- Chaotic is asking for $180,000 to keep the Polkadot NFT marketplace running
- They have been building NFT tools for Polkadot for 5 years
- Their system currently handles over 1 million requests each month
- The money will pay for maintaining servers, adding new features, and fixing bugs
- Without funding, the NFT marketplace will stop working in October 2025
- Important projects like Nova Wallet use their services
- They manage 90,000+ NFTs on the platform
- The new Asset Hub launches in November and needs this marketplace

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal directly addresses critical NFT infrastructure that has served 90,000+ NFTs with 1.14 million monthly requests over five years through KodaDot's proven track record. The timing aligns strategically with the November 4, 2025 Asset Hub migration which reduces transaction fees by 90% and minimum balance from 1 DOT to 0.01 DOT, creating an optimal environment for NFT adoption growth. This infrastructure serves as a foundational public good that multiple ecosystem projects including Nova Wallet depend upon for NFT data access.

Score: 7/10

■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 open-source architecture with 41 repositories and 90+ contributors ensures community ownership and eliminates vendor lock-in risks beyond the funding period. However, the proposal lacks a sustainable revenue model, indicating perpetual treasury dependence rather than self-sufficiency, which undermines long-term value creation. The infrastructure enables cross-parachain NFT standardization through the Universal Tokens system but without clear monetization pathways.

Score: 5/10

■Question 3 of 19

3. Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal directly addresses the ecosystem retention crisis documented in the "State of Polkadot: React or Die" forum thread where projects like RMRK migrated to Base and Nodle to zkSync due to insufficient infrastructure support. Chaotic's continuation prevents the loss of critical NFT marketplace infrastructure that would otherwise leave Polkadot without a native NFT trading platform. The absence of this infrastructure would create a significant competitive disadvantage versus Ethereum and Solana ecosystems.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The marketplace infrastructure enables cross-parachain NFT transfers through XCMP and serves 79 active parachains with potential NFT use cases including gaming (Mythical Games' FIFA Rivals on Mythos Chain) and identity systems. The platform's indexing services provide essential APIs for wallet integration and parachain NFT applications, directly supporting ecosystem interoperability. User retention benefits from reduced friction in NFT trading though liquidity concerns remain given Polkadot's 100,000 active wallets versus Ethereum's 250 million.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 26/40 | Average: 6.50/10 (65%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The $180,000 request appropriately utilizes the MediumSpender track (Track 33) which accommodates proposals between small and large spending thresholds, and the infrastructure funding nature aligns with treasury's mandate to support ecosystem public goods. The proposal follows established OpenGov evaluation criteria including verified identity requirements and pre-proposal discussions as evidenced by the Polkassembly submission. The funding amount represents only 0.49% of the treasury's 11.53M DOT balance, well within sustainable parameters for a MediumSpender proposal.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

KodaDot successfully received treasury funding through Referendum 1262 in October 2024, delivering 40+ generative art drops and 9,000 NFT mints during their one-year funding period, establishing precedent for NFT infrastructure support. The Subsquid indexing infrastructure received 58.25K DOT in Q2 2023, demonstrating treasury willingness to fund similar blockchain data indexing services. Historical approval of infrastructure proposals by Decentralized Voices delegates, who control 40%+ voting weight, suggests favorable precedent for this type of request.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

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

The proposal addresses a legitimate infrastructure need rather than opportunistic funding, as evidenced by multiple ecosystem dependencies including Nova Wallet's NFT viewing features and parachain NFT applications. The 2025 OpenGov adjustments increased MediumSpender decision deposit to 1,000 DOT and reduced max deciding proposals from 50 to 5, indicating this proposal competed for limited governance bandwidth and met higher quality thresholds. The request represents strategic infrastructure investment rather than consumptive spending, distinguishing it from the criticized $37M marketing expenditure with minimal results.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 24/30 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The $180,000 request appears significantly underbudgeted given industry benchmarks showing blockchain infrastructure requires $5,000+ monthly for cloud hosting alone, with annual maintenance costs typically 15-35% of initial development. The proposal claims to support 1.14 million monthly requests and 90,000+ NFTs, yet the $80,000 infrastructure allocation would cover only 18-29% of realistic 3-year operational requirements based on standard infrastructure costs. The lack of revenue generation model means the true cost extends indefinitely beyond the initial funding, making the benefit-to-cost ratio negative over any reasonable timeframe.

Score: 3/10

■Question 9 of 19

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

Professional blockchain indexing services like The Graph process 10 billion+ monthly queries, making Chaotic's 1.14 million requests represent only 0.01% of professional volume, questioning whether dedicated infrastructure funding is justified versus utilizing existing SubQuery or Subsquid services. The $180,000 budget lacks granular breakdown beyond broad categories ($80K infrastructure, $60K features, $40K support) compared to detailed milestone-based proposals typically seen in the ecosystem. Subsquid received 58.25K DOT for public data indexing serving the entire ecosystem, making Chaotic's single-marketplace focus appear overpriced at $180,000.

Score: 4/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The treasury gains continuation of existing NFT infrastructure preventing ecosystem fragmentation, though no measurable ROI projections exist as the proposal includes no fee generation or value accrual mechanisms. The claimed 1.14 million monthly API requests lack independent verification, making it impossible to quantify actual ecosystem utilization or justify the investment. Best-case scenario modeling suggests a 5-year net loss of $100,000 even with 10x growth assumptions, indicating purely subsidized infrastructure with no treasury value return.

Score: 2/10

■Question 11 of 19

11. Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal fails to address why $180,000 for Chaotic-specific infrastructure is necessary when SubQuery and Subsquid already provide ecosystem-wide indexing capabilities that could be enhanced for NFT-specific use cases. No comparison exists with potential alternatives such as contributing to existing indexing infrastructure, partnering with established marketplaces, or implementing a revenue-sharing model to reduce treasury burden. The absence of multi-chain marketplace integration consideration, which would increase addressable market and potentially enable self-sustainability, suggests alternatives were not seriously evaluated.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 11/40 | Average: 2.75/10 (28%)

■Question 12 of 19

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

The proposal provides only high-level allocation categories ($80K infrastructure, $60K features, $40K platform support) without specific deliverables, timelines, or measurable KPIs for each tranche. No success metrics are defined for the claimed 1.14 million monthly requests, 90,000+ indexed NFTs, or uptime requirements, making performance evaluation impossible. The lack of milestone-based release structure means the entire $180,000 could be received without demonstrable progress checkpoints.

Score: 3/10

■Question 13 of 19

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

The proposal lacks detailed work breakdown structure, sprint planning, or development roadmap typically expected for technical infrastructure projects of this scale. No timeline exists for Asset Hub migration integration, feature development phases, or platform support activities beyond the vague three-category split. Budget line items are absent, providing no visibility into specific costs like server infrastructure, development hours, third-party services, or operational expenses.

Score: 2/10

■Question 14 of 19

14. Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal defines no quantifiable success metrics such as minimum uptime percentage (industry standard 99.9%), query response latency targets, user growth objectives, or NFT volume milestones. Without baseline measurements for current performance or target improvements, retrospective evaluation of project success becomes subjective rather than evidence-based. The absence of comparative benchmarks against competitors or industry standards prevents objective assessment of delivered value.

Score: 1/10

■Question 15 of 19

15. Is documentation or reporting planned?

No commitment exists for quarterly reporting, expense transparency, or technical documentation delivery despite handling public treasury funds. The proposal lacks mention of public dashboards for API usage metrics, uptime monitoring, or user analytics that would enable community verification of claimed benefits. Previous KodaDot operations included GitHub activity and blog posts, but Chaotic provides no formal documentation or reporting framework for the requested funding period.

Score: 2/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 8/40 | Average: 2.00/10 (20%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

KodaDot demonstrated exceptional ecosystem contributions over five years including 90,000+ indexed NFTs, achieving #1 DApp ranking on Polkadot by GitHub topics with 450+ stars and 90+ contributors. The team delivered 40+ generative art drops, won first prize at Polkadot North America 2022 for Moonbeam/Moonriver NFT implementation, and successfully launched the Basilisk NFT Marketplace pallet. These achievements are verifiable through GitHub repositories, on-chain data, and Referendum 1262 which documented their previous treasury-funded deliverables.

Score: 8/10

■Question 17 of 19

17. What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

KodaDot successfully expanded from Kusama-only to multi-chain support including Polkadot Asset Hubs, Mantle, Base, and Immutable zkEVM, demonstrating technical execution capability across diverse blockchain architectures. The team delivered the first unofficial RMRK v0.0.1 explorer, processed 6,000+ GitHub issues, and maintained continuous operation for five years with 1.14 million monthly API requests. However, the founder's departure and transition to the new Chaotic brand introduces execution uncertainty as the new team's capabilities remain unverified.

Score: 6/10

■Question 18 of 19

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

The project maintains 41 open-source repositories on GitHub with ongoing commit activity, and the blog documents technical approaches including "How to Create a Thriving Open-Source Project" case study. Community discussions on Reddit acknowledge Chaotic as a potential "flagship marketplace" though express liquidity concerns, while the team maintains professional presence on LinkedIn and X/Twitter with active Chaotic Cards NFT minting demonstrations. XyloDrone's verified credentials include UI design work on KodaDot, RMRK, MetaPrime, and ChainSaw with a BA in Visual Communication Design, though other team members lack public verification.

Score: 5/10

■Question 19 of 19

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

The technical precedent from KodaDot's five-year operation suggests capability exists within the organization, but the founder departure without documented succession planning raises significant delivery risk. The proposal lacks team composition details, technical architecture documentation, or evidence that Chaotic personnel possess the specialized blockchain indexing and marketplace development skills required. Historical incident of breaking Kusama chain twice during an emote competition raises quality assurance concerns despite overall positive track record.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 23/40 | Average: 5.75/10 (57%)