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: Closing the Polkadot Marketing Bounty

Track: 11 | Origin: Treasurer | Amount:

Status: Deciding

Remaining Time: 8d 22h 35m

Summary of the proposal

- Polkadot started a Marketing Bounty to help the community promote the network.
- It was given a budget of 200,000 DOT each month.
- The community decided to stop it to save money and make sure spending is clear and effective.
- It was hard to measure how well the bounty was working.
- Stopping it will help protect Polkadot’s treasury funds.
- This does not mean Polkadot is stopping all marketing.
- The community will work together to find better ways to grow.
- Everyone is encouraged to share ideas for future plans.

ANALYSIS

■Question 1 of 19

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

The closure directly addresses treasury sustainability concerns following April 2025's first negative net flow of approximately 101,000 DOT, demonstrating commitment to prudent fiscal management that strengthens long-term network resilience. The Marketing Bounty consumed 200,000 DOT monthly (approximately $451,000 at current DOT price of $2.2549), representing 14.75% of the 16.27M DOT treasury annually, creating significant drain on ecosystem resources. By halting expenditure with difficult-to-quantify outcomes, the proposal preserves capital for future initiatives with stronger outcome-driven frameworks.

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 closure returns unspent bounty funds to treasury and saves approximately 2.4 million DOT annually ($5.41 million at $2.2549/DOT), strengthening the treasury's estimated 10-year runway under the new inflation model. Calculation: 200,000 DOT/month × 12 months = 2,400,000 DOT; 2,400,000 × $2.2549 = $5,411,760 annual savings. This establishes precedent for accountability-driven governance, signaling that underperforming initiatives will be reformed rather than perpetuated.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

3. Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal directly addresses the documented structural weakness of marketing expenditure lacking measurable ROI, exemplified by the controversial $37 million H1 2024 outreach spending that attracted significant community criticism for "minimal measurable results." The Marketing Bounty Deep Dive from November 2025 revealed that bounty reports contained "lots of verbs and no numbers... not a single KPI listed," confirming systemic transparency deficiencies requiring structural intervention.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

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

The closure temporarily disrupts marketing support for the Polkadot App launch and AssetHub stablecoin initiatives, potentially affecting user acquisition during a critical adoption phase. However, the 44 recipients across 19 countries funded under Marketing Bounty 2.0 achieved only questionable engagement metrics, with the Kaito Campaign (~$1.1M) criticized for "botted traffic" that "didn't translate into real usage or on-chain activity." The proposal's strategic pause enables development of marketing frameworks with verifiable on-chain impact rather than vanity metrics.

Score: 6/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 29/40 | Average: 7.25/10 (73%)

■Question 5 of 19

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

The Treasurer track (Track 11) is correctly utilized for bounty closure actions, with parameters including a 28-day decision period, 7-day confirmation period, 1,000 DOT decision deposit, and spending limit up to 10 million DOT. This aligns with the track's mandate for high-value treasury management actions, as confirmed by the parallel Referendum #1795 (Close Polkadot Pioneers Prize Bounty) using the identical Treasurer origin for returning ~702,950 DOT to treasury.

Score: 9/10

■Question 6 of 19

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

Strong precedent exists for bounty closures through OpenGov. Referendum #1033 proposed closing Bounty #46 (AMI Bounty Program) because it "has realistically done nothing except pay its curators." Referendum #1795 (concurrent with #1791) proposes closing the Pioneers Prize Bounty to return ~702,950 DOT. The Bounty Compliance Standards established by Referendum #1254 (executed with 97.3% Aye support) created binding accountability requirements that informed this closure decision.

Score: 9/10

■Question 7 of 19

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

This proposal represents the Web3 Foundation's first direct governance intervention following their October 2025 announcement of OpenGov participation, demonstrating meaningful use of governance mechanisms to address documented treasury sustainability concerns. The W3F Funding Committee operates under published criteria requiring "clear and unequivocal benefit for the Polkadot ecosystem" and commits to reviewing "other long-running bounties," indicating systematic governance engagement rather than ad-hoc burden.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 26/30 | Average: 8.67/10 (87%)

■Question 8 of 19

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

The Marketing Bounty consumed $10.9 million in 2024 alone, representing 46% of all bounty spending, yet outcomes remained "difficult to quantify" per the proposal text. The closure generates immediate savings: at current parameters (DOT price $2.2549, Treasury 16.27M DOT), the treasury value equals $36.69 million (16,270,000 × $2.2549), and the 200,000 DOT monthly budget equals $450,980 representing 1.23% of treasury monthly (200,000 ÷ 16,270,000 = 1.23%). Annual savings of 2.4M DOT equals 14.75% of treasury preserved.

Score: 8/10

■Question 9 of 19

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

The Marketing Bounty's 200,000 DOT monthly budget far exceeded comparable bounties: Events Bounty received 500,000 DOT for 6 months (83,333 DOT/month), making Marketing Bounty 2.4x larger. Security Bounty (Polkadot Assurance Legion) spent only $1.8 million annually versus Marketing's $10.9 million—a 6x disparity. The 72% expenditure reduction claim (from $16.10M to $4.47M) under Marketing Bounty 2.0 still left spending at levels disproportionate to measurable ecosystem impact.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

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

The closure returns unspent funds and eliminates future expenditure with questionable ROI. The Nova Wallet × Blast Campaign (~$1.5M) reportedly onboarded ~20,000 wallets with most going inactive. The Kaito Campaign (~$1.1M) produced engagement described as "inflated" with traffic that "didn't translate into real usage or on-chain activity... most people agree it was botted traffic." Curator compensation totaled approximately $472,000 for one year, including $195,000 for the General Manager alone.

Score: 8/10

■Question 11 of 19

11. Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal explicitly commits W3F and the Funding Committee to "collaborate with the community to review the structure and performance of other long-running bounties" and develop "more effective, accountable frameworks." This pause-and-reassess approach is more cost-effective than continuing unverified spending. The existence of Decentralized Futures grants (supporting Distractive, Magenta Labs) provides alternative marketing support without bounty overhead.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 3

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

■Question 12 of 19

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

The closure proposal clearly states that unspent funds will return to treasury and all new spending will cease immediately, providing unambiguous fund disposition. The rationale explicitly documents that the bounty's "structure presents challenges in measuring return on investment at scale" and outcomes "remain difficult to quantify," establishing transparent justification for termination rather than continuation.

Score: 8/10

■Question 13 of 19

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

The proposal specifies an "orderly wind-down in accordance with on-chain governance processes" managed by the Funding Committee and W3F, though specific timelines for curator transition and ongoing commitment resolution remain unspecified. The closure mechanism is straightforward: upon passage, Bounty #33 terminates and funds return to treasury through standard on-chain processes.

Score: 6/10

■Question 14 of 19

14. Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

Success criteria are implicit rather than explicit: success means treasury funds preserved, no further marketing bounty expenditure, and community development of improved frameworks. The proposal commits W3F to "collaborate with the community to review the structure and performance of other long-running bounties," establishing forward accountability. Measurable success can be tracked through treasury balance preservation and subsequent framework development.

Score: 6/10

■Question 15 of 19

15. Is documentation or reporting planned?

The Marketing Bounty Deep Dive published by OpenGov.Watch in November 2025 provided the transparent documentation that informed this closure decision, including detailed spending breakdowns (Blast Campaign ~$1.73M, Kaito ~$1.1M, Kusamarian ~$485K, Curator wages ~$472K). The Bounty Compliance Audit conducted in September 2025 under Referendum #1254 standards created the accountability framework enabling evidence-based closure decisions.

Score: 7/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 27/40 | Average: 6.75/10 (68%)

■Question 16 of 19

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

The Web3 Foundation is the original founding organization behind Polkadot, established to support decentralized web protocols. W3F created the Decentralized Futures program, the Grants Program (evaluating hundreds of applications), and now the Decentralized Voices program delegating 42 million DOT voting power to community organizations. Their October 2025 announcement of OpenGov participation established published voting criteria emphasizing treasury protection and outcome-driven frameworks.

Score: 10/10

■Question 17 of 19

17. What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

W3F has successfully implemented foundational Polkadot ecosystem initiatives including the grants program (funding core infrastructure projects), Decentralized Futures (supporting entities like Distractive and Magenta Labs), and the Decentralized Nodes program selecting professional validators. The parallel Referendum #1795 to close the Pioneers Prize Bounty demonstrates systematic bounty review implementation, returning ~702,950 DOT to treasury.

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?

W3F maintains extensive public documentation including the Research page (web3.foundation/research), Grants Program documentation, and regular Medium publications. Community feedback on Referendum #1791 shows overwhelming support with ~143.9M DOT Aye versus 1 DOT Nay (effectively 100% approval). PolkaWorld noted this as "Web3 Foundation stepping into OpenGov for the first time ever," acknowledging the significance.

Score: 9/10

■Question 19 of 19

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

W3F and the Funding Committee possess the governance standing and ecosystem influence to execute bounty closure through standard on-chain processes. Their commitment to "collaborate with the community to review other long-running bounties" and develop improved frameworks is supported by existing infrastructure (grants program, Decentralized Futures) and technical expertise. The straightforward nature of bounty closure requires no complex technical implementation.

Score: 9/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 37/40 | Average: 9.25/10 (93%)