Skip to main content

2025 February Polkadot OpenGov Report

February saw multiple significant sponsorship rejections, clearly indicating tokenholder preferences. Both e-sports proposals, Vitality and G2, failed to gain approval. Vitality was rejected decisively, while G2's narrower margin still wasn't sufficient. These results underline that token holders are increasingly inclined toward proposals that emphasize direct integrations and more thoughtfully designed user funnels.

Meanwhile, the racing sponsorship faced its third consecutive rejection, following earlier failures in October and January. With this third rejection, the racing sponsorship now shares a record with the Chainalysis proposals, which hasn't resurfaced since its third rejection.

These repetitive submissions raise several critical governance questions:

  • When should repeated submissions be classified as spam?
  • Under what conditions should the community activate referendum cancellers or killers to discourage redundant submissions?
  • Should there be a formal limit on how many times a referendum can be resubmitted?
  • How many community resources (such as media coverage and mindshare) should be dedicated to proposals that repeatedly fail?

These are open questions the community can discuss proactively to ensure future governance resources and community focus are allocated more efficiently.

Departmentality​

Until now, bounties have collaborated on small, specific proposals on an as-needed basis. We believe it's time to initiate a high-level departmental collaboration, leading these efforts under a unified structure.

It's clear the treasury will continue to receive sponsorship proposals regularly. Instead of waiting passively for the next proposal, which could result in missed opportunities or lost value simply because a competitor proposed earlier. It is crucial to be proactive.

To initiate this proactive approach, we recently sent invitations to all bounties active in outreach activities, asking them to participate in a collaborative session. Each bounty is invited to send a maximum of two representatives. This initial meeting will address general operational issues in the bounties and explore potential solutions. Additionally, it will kick-start the development of a generic Request for Proposal (RFP) for sponsorship proposals, establishing clearer standards and a dedicated budget to ensure future consistency in sponsorship funding proposals and reduce redundancies.

We want to underline this clearly: OpenGov.Watch does not endorse sponsorship proposals. However, given the inevitability of these proposals, establishing clear criteria will help reduce spam and improve resource allocation in the long term.

Bounty Best Practices​

We recently published the bounty best practices document, a comprehensive guide covering essential operations and common challenges faced by both new and established bounties. This guide, built on our experiences as OpenGovWatch and feedback from various bounty curators, outlines practical recommendations for initiating and managing bounties effectively.

The document provides guidance on setting up bounty infrastructure, managing internal roles, budgets, and projects, and ensuring proper handling of transactions. It also highlights communication strategies, compliance measures, transparency standards, conflict of interest protocols, and branding requirements and outlines the responsibilities expected of various roles in the bounties.

Department Updates​

February was a busy month on the bounty scene.

UX Audits and User Testing​

The UX Bounty recently underwent significant restructuring. Several curators transitioned into advisory roles to establish a more agile operating structure, and a new curator, Flez, joined the bounty.

Additionally, the UX Bounty is launching a new initiative to fund UX audits for Polkadot projects, offering grants up to $10k per audit. Initially, this program is limited to four projects. The first proof of concept has already begun with UX audits for governance platforms Polkassembly and Subsquare, directly addressing the criticism and community feedback regarding their user experiences.

Anti-scam is Defunded​

The recent 100k DOT refill proposal by the Anti-scam Bounty was decisively rejected, with a 98% rejection rate. This effectively defunds the bounty, leaving it with only around 3k DOT remaining in its subtreasury. This rejection is the second consecutive denial for the Anti-scam team, following their previous ‘top-up’ proposal seven months ago.

Rust Bounty Curators Approval Underway​

The recently approved Rust Bounty curators are now being voted on, receiving unanimous community support. The proposed curator team includes core Polkadot developers and prominent technical figures from the ecosystem.

The newly approved Legal bounty has now finalized its curator structure. Unlike other bounties, this one uses an unusually small 2-of-4 multi-sig arrangement. It’s important to note that best practices recommend at least a 3-of-5 multi-sig setup to improve internal security and ensure greater operational resilience.

Spanish Bounty V3 Rejected​

A new proposal to revive the previously timed-out Spanish Bounty was rejected. Criticism focused primarily on its overlapping responsibilities with existing bounties, such as Marketing and Events, and discussions about whether individual language-specific departments are necessary.

Bounty Closures​

The Parachain Assets Onramp Bounty was closed at the beginning of February due to inactivity. Additionally, the closure proposal for the Technical Support Bounty is currently in the confirmation period, again because of inactivity.

Notable Mentions​

  • The fourth cohort of the Decentralized Voices program applications has been concluded. All current delegates reapplied, along with an influx of new groups and individuals. Selected delegates will be appointed starting April 1st and will serve a four-month tenure, receiving 3,500 DOT as compensation for their contributions.
  • The Parallel hack is finally over with a dramatic ending. In a nutshell, an attacker compromised the Parallel parachain in October, stealing approximately 300,000 DOT and 100,000 USDT. Despite several recovery attempts through OpenGov referenda, including re-bonding tokens to extend recovery time, the attacker bypassed the usual 28-day unbonding period using a ‘fast-unstake’ feature, ultimately transferring the stolen assets out of the Polkadot ecosystem. The attacker also communicated with a Wish-for-Change referendum, questioning the over-involvement of the technical fellowship.
  • Marketing Bounty getting institutionalized: OpenGov.Watch's proposal enabling the Marketing Bounty to utilize the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) as a legal wrapper for external contracts is nearing approval. If successful, this approach will set a precedent for other bounties to utilize the legal vehicle to go into contracts with third parties.
  • Undecoded: Decentred’s request for additional funds for Decoded 2024 has been rejected with 99.9% disapproval. Community backlash intensified due to Decentred holding excess funds of about half a million (receiving $1.7 million instead of the initial $1.2m request) without converting and returning the surplus to the treasury. Rather than managing the funds responsibly, they appeared to hold onto them. The message is clear: the Treasury is not there to hedge your risks.
  • PCF & Centrifuge Funds Stalemate: Six months ago, the PCF was mandated to deploy 1.5M USDC into Centrifuge’s T-Bill pool via OpenGov. However, concerns have grown regarding Centrifuge's long-term commitment to the Polkadot ecosystem, with speculation that it may be migrating to another chain. Leemo recently proposed a WfC referendum to halt the fund deployment until Centrifuge provides clear confirmation of its continued presence in Polkadot. However, the proposal failed to progress due to a lack of a decision deposit, leaving the issue unresolved. Meanwhile, community members continue to question why PCF has yet to deploy these funds after six months of inaction.

Support the Watch​