Skip to main content

2025 April Polkadot OpenGov Report

Incentives and Loans​

Two major financial proposals are on the table this month.

Hydration returned with a proposal requesting 5 million DOT (~$25 million) from the treasury to fund incentive programs for stablecoin, money market, and DOT derivative liquidity provision on their platform. This figure accounts for roughly 18% of the DOT in the Polkadot treasury at the time of publication.

This isn’t Hydration’s first liquidity incentive ask. A previous campaign secured 1 million DOT and was later reported as a success, citing growth in metrics such as total liquidity, trading volume, active accounts, and XCM transfer volume.

While Hydration's role in the Polkadot DeFi landscape is highly supported, several DV delegates and token holders have challenged the proposal. They argue that the current proposal is too large for a direct spend without community deliberation, and the long-term sustainability of incentive-driven growth is questionable. Treasury-backed liquidity mining may have near-term network effects, but it still lacks a convincing long-term model that benefits committed ecosystem participants.

At the time of writing, it holds 60% approval with 12 days remaining in the decision period.

Meanwhile, Bifrost also submitted a proposal requesting 1 million DOT (~$5 million) as a loan to support liquidity for their liquid staking token. Bifrost’s track record includes multiple loans previously issued by the Kusama treasury, all of which were repaid to the treasury with interest.

This new request follows a similar structure. The funds are expected to be returned with 6% interest by 2026, providing a revenue stream back to the treasury. The proposal has received near-unanimous support, with a 99.8% approval rate as it enters its final week of voting.

The New Meta​

Another behemoth that hit the treasury floor this month was the metaproposal.

Structured around a new sponsorship package for two esports teams, the proposal also bundled in complementary ecosystem tools, app development, and the creation of a dedicated esports department.

The proposal came from a newly formed group, the Polkadot Esports Committee, composed of known figures in the ecosystem, including DonDiegoSanchez, Strindbergman, MoonBearer, and supported by DAOs and companies like Airlyft, Braille, and Le Nexus.

Despite the high-profile lineup, the proposal is on track to be rejected with a record disapproval rate of ~100%. With just two days left in the decision period, only 300 DOT in total voting power have been cast on the approval side. So, what went wrong?

The Price Tag: The proposal requests 1.5 million DOT, which is equivalent to over $5 million. Amid tighter scrutiny on treasury spending, this number likely raised immediate red flags for many tokenholders.

Complexity Overload: Ironically, while tokenholders have consistently criticized past sponsorships for lacking integrations, this proposal tried to address that gap by offering a multi-part bundle of integrations, tooling, and department formation. But it may have gone too far in the opposite direction. The layered scope and unclear prioritization might have created confusion and skepticism.

The Heroic Factor: Polkadot’s current sponsorship with another esports team remains active and, by most accounts, is considered a successful one thanks to its open communication and visible engagement with the community. Some tokenholders think that the deal is sufficient for the network’s esports exposure, making another sponsorship redundant.

Sponsorship Fatigue: After a year of spending on racing, football, and esports, many voters are questioning whether these initiatives have delivered a measurable return on investment. The repeated rejection of motorsport proposals in recent months might suggest a clear shift in sentiment on sponsored brand spending.

Accusations Without Evidence​

A relatively small but important debate unfolded around Polkaworld’s annual proposal requesting $260k for another year of media creation.

Polkaworld is a long-standing media outlet focused on Polkadot content in Chinese. Their latest funding request was met with criticism from several ecosystem participants. In the Kusamarian Discord and on Twitter, some people accused Polkaworld of orchestrating a smear campaign to harm Polkadot’s reputation. The core allegation was that Polkaworld had paid multiple third-party media outlets to simultaneously publish negative articles about the network following the rejection of a previous proposal.

These accusations were strongly denied by Polkaworld, emphasizing that no evidence was ever provided to substantiate the claims.

Ultimately, the accusers issued a public apology.

We want to underline how dangerous it is to participate in or amplify accusations based solely on subjective interpretation that lacks a factual basis. Governance disagreements should not lead to character attacks or mob behavior. Legal action is a real risk in such cases, and more importantly, it erodes the foundation of respectful dialogue that any governance system depends on.

Let us remain civil, argue on merit, and when needed, agree to disagree!

Departmental Updates​

UX Bounty​

The UX Bounty has continued to develop its structure and communication efforts as well as its audit campaigns on multiple ecosystem products. A dedicated Twitter page is now live at PolkadotUX, and the team is yet again looking for a new curator to support its ongoing operations.

A quarterly report for Q1 was also published. One detail noted in the report is that bounty operations currently represent the largest share of total spending for the quarter. This is mainly due to the way costs are recorded. Time spent by curators on scoping, reviewing, and supporting proposal submissions is categorized under bounty operations and paid monthly, while spending on projects is only reflected after deliverables are completed.

As a result, it has been reported to us that there is a gap between operational and project-related spending. The target is to reduce the share of operations to around 30 percent in the next quarter as active projects reach completion and their associated costs are recorded.

Marketing Bounty​

With a new top-up proposal approaching, we would like to share our observations regarding the Marketing Bounty since stepping down in January.

First, we want to acknowledge the efforts of those who continue to work within the bounty. It is a high-stress & high-demand job. The new Marketing Bounty has significantly increased the quality of how the ecosystem does decentralized marketing. The bounty restructured ad spends to be more efficient, focused on more meaningful platform integrations, supported individual ecosystem projects, and increased the focus on developing the regional PR presence. The program currently employs a significant number of contributors across various roles, and we support its role in creating job opportunities within the ecosystem.

At the same time, we have noted several concerns.

One issue is the absence of open selection processes for key positions. RFP type job listings have not been used for important roles such as the recent curator replacement. This runs counter to the practices we have previously encouraged for transparency and accessibility.

There has also been a noticeable decline in communication and reporting. No advisor meetings were held since January until last week. No public-facing reports have been shared since February, and there was no monthly community call in April. The information gap has made it difficult for the broader community to remain informed and involved.

Lastly, we have observed an increasing risk of blurred boundaries between roles. The relationships between managers and contractors, as well as the connections between public and private actors, have become more difficult to distinguish. This raises questions about accountability and conflict of interest management that we believe should be addressed directly.

Notable Mentions​

  • Native Storage: The Eiger team has returned with a new proposal requesting 1.9 million USDT from the treasury. This is the same amount as their earlier proposal, which failed with only 30k DOT in total voting power. According to the team, work on the project has continued uninterrupted, regardless of the failed proposal. They report that over 90 percent of phase three has been completed. As such, the current proposal effectively functions as a retroactive request for funding. A follow-up proposal for phase four is expected soon. It should be noted that the Parity VP of Engineering Pierre Aubert is openly supporting the proposal.

    We would also like to acknowledge the detailed reporting system they have maintained on the Polkadot Forum, which provides clear and consistent updates for the community.

  • Bounty HR: A retroactive tip proposal has been submitted to recognize the creation of a prototype staff and HR database for bounty contributors. The current version is maintained as a Notion page and serves as an early effort to bring more structure to contributor records.

    This is a very important step. While the format is still informal, the goal is clear: to track individuals working across bounties, check for overlapping roles, and provide a reference for total treasury income. As the number of active bounties continues to grow, a shared resource like this could improve transparency and coordination across the network.

  • Cornering the Coretime Market: A whitelisted proposal was submitted after some parachains lost access to coretime when a single buyer acquired all available slots. This triggered a broader debate on market manipulation and the lack of safeguards in the coretime system. While the proposal resolved the immediate issue for prominent chains, it also underscores a growing dilemma between free market operations and the need for protocol changes. More on this topic on the next report!

Support the Watch​