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: Polkadot Staking Dashboard: Improvements, Upgrades & DeFi Integration

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 154.000 USDC

Status: Deciding

Remaining Time: 22d 17h 47m

Summary of the proposal

- Polkadot Staking Dashboard helps people stake their DOT tokens to earn rewards
- It's used by thousands of people every month as their main staking tool
- New features will include DeFi options like liquid staking and token swaps
- Users will be able to pay fees with stablecoins like USDC and USDT
- The dashboard will get a visual refresh to match Polkadot's new design
- Mobile experience will be improved for better phone and tablet use
- More language translations will be added for international users
- The team provides support through Discord and email for help

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The proposal demonstrably supports long-term development through its proven usage metrics of 37,000 monthly page visits (1.2M+ annually) and established position as the primary native staking interface, serving as the "flagship gateway" for tens of thousands of users monthly. The expanded 9-month timeline with 27 deliverables including DeFi integration (stablecoin transaction fees, liquid staking via Bifrost with 60% DOT LST market share, token swaps, cross-chain transfers) positions the dashboard to bridge traditional staking with Polkadot's DeFi ecosystem, directly addressing declining staking rewards as inflation adjustments take effect. Network expansion to Vara and Paseo testnet, plus multi-language support and Staking API documentation with health monitoring RPC endpoints, enhances ecosystem resilience and developer accessibility.

Score: 8/10

■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 proposal delivers sustainable infrastructure through the Staking API with GraphQL documentation and API key support, enabling third-party applications to leverage the staking infrastructure independently, and RPC health monitoring endpoints (tasks 26-27) that create reusable public goods. The Dedot API migration completed in the previous funding period enables fully typed, multi-network support allowing other networks to integrate directly into the main repository without forking, reducing fragmentation and maintenance burden ecosystem-wide. Discord and email support channels established in the prior period demonstrate ongoing commitment to user education and support infrastructure that outlasts individual funding cycles.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

3. Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal directly addresses multiple structural weaknesses: (1) the friction between staking and DeFi participation through liquid staking integration with Bifrost, which controls 60% of DOT LST market share ($125M TVL), allowing users to maintain staking yields while accessing DeFi; (2) the approaching decline in native staking rewards due to inflation adjustments and fixed supply cap implementation; (3) the 28-day unbonding period limitation through 2-day unbonding support when deployed. The dashboard also addresses Westend testnet instability (over 60,000 nominators with less than 1% supply staked) by onboarding Paseo as a more representative testing environment.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

Interoperability is significantly enhanced through cross-chain DOT transfer support via Paraspell SDK integration (task 2), AssetHub currency interface for DOT/USDC/USDT with transfer capabilities (task 3), and DOT/KSM/stablecoin swap interface (task 5). User retention benefits from reduced friction through stablecoin transaction fee payments, 2-day unbonding versus 28-day waits, improved Simple Mode onboarding, and expanded localization covering most-visited locales beyond existing English/Spanish/Chinese support. Parachain development gains from Vara Network integration, Mimir SDK support preventing fork maintenance, and the modular multi-network architecture enabling direct integration of new networks without codebase duplication.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 30/40 | Average: 7.50/10 (75%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The $154,000 USDC request equals approximately 51,009 DOT at $3.0190/DOT, well within the MediumSpender track's 100,000 DOT upper limit, representing 0.43% of the 11.98M DOT treasury. The proposal appropriately utilizes MediumSpender for critical infrastructure maintenance and enhancement rather than protocol-level changes requiring Root origin or minor expenditures suitable for SmallSpender. The 9-month timeline with 27 specific deliverables including ongoing hosting, support channels, and feature development aligns precisely with the track's intended purpose of funding substantial ecosystem services that provide measurable public goods.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Referendum 569 (approved, 22,252 DOT for 6 months Feb-Jul 2024) successfully funded the dashboard's transition from Parity management to independent operation, achieving verified milestone completion via OG Tracker including Dedot API migration and Discord/email support channel establishment. Referendum 1703 (rejected, $103,000 USDC for 6 months Sep 2025-Mar 2026) proposed similar maintenance and liquid staking features but with shorter timeline and lower budget. The current proposal's increased funding to $154,000 for 9 months ($17,111/month) actually represents similar or lower monthly cost than Ref 569's rate while adding substantial DeFi integration scope based on community feedback from the Ref 1703 rejection.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

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

The proposal meaningfully engages governance by incorporating community feedback from Ref 1703's rejection to expand scope and timeline, demonstrating responsive iteration rather than repetitive submissions. With verified completion of previous milestones via OG Tracker, established usage metrics (37,000 monthly visits), and Discord/email support infrastructure proving active community engagement, the proposal represents legitimate ongoing infrastructure needs rather than speculative or unnecessary spending. However, the track's reduced maximum deciding proposals from 50 to 5 (2025 OpenGov adjustments) means this proposal occupies limited governance bandwidth, and the rejection of Ref 1703 followed by Ref 1772 within months suggests potential governance fatigue on iterative staking dashboard funding requests.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 25/30 | Average: 8.33/10 (83%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The $154,000 request ($17,111/month) maintains nearly identical per-month costs to the rejected Ref 1703 ($17,167/month for $103K/6mo), despite expanding from 18 to 27 deliverables over a longer timeline to accommodate strategic DeFi integration aligned with March 2026's 53% issuance reduction. With 37,000 monthly page visits and established position as "primary desktop staking gateway" serving tens of thousands of users monthly, the cost-per-user calculation demonstrates efficient infrastructure maintenance at approximately $0.46 per monthly visitor, though quantitative user acquisition targets remain unspecified. The expanded 9-month scope addresses critical ecosystem transition to alternative yield mechanisms (liquid staking, stablecoin transactions, token swaps) necessitated by upcoming supply cap, providing strategic value beyond simple maintenance.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

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

The $154,000 request significantly undercuts comparable wallet infrastructure: SubWallet received $795,000 (Q3 2025, 8-month retroactive) and Nova Wallet received retroactive approval, positioning this proposal at 19% of SubWallet's funding while serving comparable critical infrastructure needs. The per-month rate ($17,111) aligns with previously approved Ref 569 baseline and demonstrates consistency with prior successful proposals, though community feedback on Ref 1703 specifically requested "clearer budget breakdown" beyond broad categories since detailed line-item allocation resides in inaccessible Google Docs rather than on-chain documentation. Medium Spender track appropriateness confirmed for infrastructure maintenance, though granular cost justification (development hours, hosting expenses, API infrastructure costs) lacks transparency compared to ecosystem proposals with milestone-based breakdowns.

Score: 6/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

Treasury receives critical infrastructure continuity preventing fragmentation of 37K+ monthly users while positioning the dashboard as DeFi gateway during March 2026's transformative 53% issuance reduction, when stakers require immediate access to liquid staking alternatives (Bifrost integration), stablecoin fee payments, and token swap functionality to maintain competitive yields. Network gains include: (1) proven team with verified OG Tracker milestone completion from Ref 569, (2) expansion from 3 to 5+ networks (Paseo, Vara) demonstrating ecosystem growth infrastructure, (3) enhanced decentralization through dedicated Discord/email support reducing reliance on centralized exchanges for staking, and (4) foundation for protocol-critical features like Proof of Personhood and 2-day unbonding support. The dashboard serves as reference implementation for ecosystem developers and maintains Dedot API flagship status, though ROI measurement lacks concrete metrics like "stakers onboarded" or "TVL secured" for retrospective evaluation.

Score: 7/10

■Question 11 of 19

11. Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal addresses community feedback from rejected Ref 1703 by extending timeline to 9 months rather than reducing scope to lower costs, explicitly noting "Should this proposal not pass, we remain committed to the dashboard as critical infrastructure" while acknowledging "expanded DeFi integration and advanced features would be delayed or unfeasible without treasury support." Google Docs references "Alternatives Considered" section (inaccessible), but on-chain documentation provides no evidence of exploring: (1) maintenance-only proposal at reduced cost, (2) partnership with funded wallets (Nova/SubWallet) to consolidate staking interfaces, (3) cost-sharing arrangements with parachain projects benefiting from dashboard integration, or (4) progressive funding tied to usage milestones rather than upfront 9-month allocation. The proposal maintains premium positioning at $17K/month baseline rather than demonstrating cost optimization responsive to prior rejection.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 3

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

■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 exceptional task-level granularity with 27 numbered deliverables mapped to specific month ranges (e.g., "Month 2" for Ledger Flex support, "Month 4-6" for liquid staking, "Month 8-9" for stablecoin fee payments), organized across five priority categories (DeFi Integration, Maintenance, UX/Hardware, Staking Features, Infrastructure) with clear technical rationales per item. However, critical deficiencies exist: (1) no quantitative KPIs like "minimum active users," "staking volume targets," or "feature adoption rates" despite community feedback requesting these metrics for Ref 1703, (2) budget allocation per task category absent from on-chain documentation with detailed breakdown relegated to Google Docs, (3) success criteria undefined beyond completion of technical milestones, and (4) no performance benchmarks (uptime SLAs, API response times, support ticket resolution) standard for infrastructure proposals of this scale.

Score: 6/10

■Question 13 of 19

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

Timeline specificity excellent: 9-month funding period (November 2025-July 2026) with month-specific ETAs for each of 27 deliverables enables precise progress tracking, and proposal correctly notes dependencies ("Requires Dedot support in Paraspell SDK" for Task 2, "when deployed" caveat for 2-day unbonding). Work packages well-defined with technical scope (Bifrost protocol for liquid staking, Paraspell SDK for cross-chain transfers, Paseo testnet migration) and clear categorization by feature domain. Critical budget opacity undermines evaluation: on-chain proposal lacks granular allocation showing how $154,000 distributes across development ($X), infrastructure hosting ($Y), API operations ($Z), and support channels ($W), instead directing evaluators to Google Docs inaccessible for on-chain verification—this directly mirrors community concern from Ref 1703 requesting "clearer budget breakdown" to evaluate cost-benefit.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

14. Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Technical completion criteria implicit through specific deliverables (e.g., "Ledger Flex support" verifiable via device compatibility, "Paseo testnet" verifiable via network list, "German & Korean localization" verifiable via UI language options), enabling binary assessment of feature delivery. However, proposal fundamentally lacks outcome-based success criteria standard for treasury-funded infrastructure: (1) no minimum user retention targets post-DeFi integration, (2) no liquid staking adoption thresholds to validate Bifrost integration value, (3) no comparative metrics showing dashboard performance versus funded wallet alternatives (Nova/SubWallet), (4) no stablecoin transaction volume targets justifying DeFi gateway positioning, and (5) no support channel performance metrics (response time, resolution rate, user satisfaction) despite maintaining Discord/email as funded activities. Previous milestone verification via "OG Tracker" demonstrates delivery capability but doesn't establish performance benchmarks for retrospective ROI assessment.

Score: 4/10

■Question 15 of 19

15. Is documentation or reporting planned?

Proposal commits to "contingency planning and risk management" with explicit requirement to "document and communicate potential blockers (protocol delays, technical challenges) proactively" as Task 12, establishing foundation for transparent execution. Infrastructure-focused deliverables include "Improve Staking API documentation" (Task 26) and "Roll out health monitoring RPC endpoints" (Task 27) with "accompanying documentation and API Key infrastructure" suggesting commitment to technical transparency. However, critical reporting gaps exist: (1) no specified reporting cadence (monthly, quarterly, milestone-based) for treasury accountability, (2) no commitment to self-reporting comparable to previous proposal's October 30 Google Docs self-report mentioned for prior funding period, (3) no public dashboard or metrics portal for real-time progress tracking despite 27 phased deliverables, and (4) no defined evaluation framework for community assessment upon completion—reliance on post-hoc OG Tracker verification reactive rather than proactive transparency standard.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 20/40 | Average: 5.00/10 (50%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

Ross Bulat managed the Polkadot Staking Dashboard at Parity Technologies for 18 months (through July 2022-early 2024) before transitioning it to independent Polkadot Cloud, establishing verifiable institutional ties to core ecosystem development. Treasury Proposal 569 (Feb-Jul 2024) was successfully completed with milestones verified via OG Tracker, demonstrating traceable on-chain accountability. The open-source GitHub repository (github.com/polkadot-cloud/polkadot-staking-dashboard) shows continuous development with 171+ stars and active commit history, providing transparent code contributions accessible to the entire ecosystem.

Score: 9/10

■Question 17 of 19

17. What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Treasury Proposal 569 delivered verified milestones including flagship Dedot API migration (complete removal of Polkadot JS API), Staking API (GraphQL plugin for historical staking data), AssetHub integration (Westend deployed), and multi-language support (English/Spanish/Chinese). The dashboard achieved 1.2M+ page visits over 12 months with tens of thousands of monthly users at staking.polkadot.cloud, demonstrating significant adoption as "premier staking app" and "essential infrastructure" per community feedback. Previous deliverables include nomination pool features (invites, one-click joining), full-screen validator management interfaces, Discord/email support channels with same-day responses, and Dashboard 2.0 complete re-architecture.

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 open-source GitHub repository (polkadot-cloud/polkadot-staking-dashboard) contains full codebase with TypeScript implementation, documented releases, and active development visible in merged PRs and commit history. Ross Bulat has published multiple technical articles on Medium detailing staking system updates while at Parity Technologies and architectural decisions for the dashboard, establishing public technical documentation. Community feedback positions the dashboard as "essential infrastructure" with consistent support channel engagement, though Ref 1703 (Sep 2025-Mar 2026) faced rejection despite claimed verified completion, indicating some community concerns about cost-benefit and overlap with wallet-integrated staking solutions.

Score: 8/10

■Question 19 of 19

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

Ross Bulat and Joel Kenny demonstrated delivery capability through Treasury Proposal 569's verified completion and successful transition of the dashboard from Parity to independent Polkadot Cloud infrastructure while maintaining operational stability. Technical achievements include complex migrations (Dedot API, Staking API development) and serving tens of thousands of monthly users at production scale, evidencing engineering competence for proposed DeFi integration features. However, Ref 1703's rejection despite claimed verified completion raises questions about alignment with community priorities and perceived value proposition, though technical delivery capability itself remains substantiated by prior successful implementations and active open-source contributions.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 33/40 | Average: 8.25/10 (83%)