Skip to main content

2025 June Polkadot OpenGov Report

The Nature of OpenGov​

Is there such a thing as human nature? That question has haunted philosophy for centuries. But an even more relevant one for us is this: does a political system have a nature?

At first glance, that sounds absurd. Political systems are social designs. They are shaped by consensus, incentives, and rule systems. When you look closely, patterns emerge. Systems develop tendencies, behaviors, and even pathologies. And more often than not, they begin to mirror the people who inhabit them.

Sometimes, actors justify their intentions by claiming it is only natural. It is natural to defend your territory, to protect your influence, to ignore what does not affect you directly. But this kind of appeal to nature is not a neutral description. It is a way to shut down debate by framing behavior as beyond our control.

The truth is that nothing is pre-defined in a system designed to be open. The shape OpenGov takes is not the result of some natural law. It is the result of what we choose to tolerate, support, or ignore. And every vote, every proposal, every debate plays a part in deciding what kind of system we are building.

Please Vote Nay​

Renaming a referendum to "please vote nay" has quietly become a habit. Sometimes it is due to technical errors, sometimes proposers change their minds, and sometimes it is a subtle way to prevent the showcase of an unwanted result.

From a very quick search, at least 146 of the 1650 referenda posted so far include either "pls vote nay" or "ignore" in their title. That is nearly 10 percent of all referenda. And this does not even count the many other variations or similar phrases that were likely missed. This is not an edge case. It is becoming part of the routine.

It would be helpful to bring some clarity to this. These proposals should be properly tagged with labels such as ‘ERROR’ or ‘RETRACTED’. And when a proposal is no longer supported, it should simply be allowed to fail. That would give a more honest signal to the network. We do not yet know the best way to implement this, but we can begin by at least creating the social norm.

One recent example is the ambassador fellowship proposal, which aimed to build a structure for the program moving forward. This was part of a broader set of submissions that focused on retroactive compensation for contributors. Some of those were accepted, others were not. But the main proposal for the program's future is currently withdrawn in response to very strong criticism.

Sadly, the discussion around it also crossed a line. Some of the ambassadors received mocking and dismissive content through their internal mailing list, targeting the program’s lead. It included personal remarks and a tone that should not be acceptable in any professional or community setting. This kind of behavior reveals an unhealthy environment that needs to change. You may not like a proposal. You may not agree with how a program is managed. But no disagreement justifies personal attacks or ridicule under anonymous identities. The community must speak clearly and reject this behavior.

Please vote nay against harassment.

Rebranding?​

An interesting Wish for Change hit OpenGov this month. Colorful Notion has proposed to rebrand the DOT token to the JAM token by the end of 2026. According to the proposal, the new name would better reflect the evolution of the protocol and align with broader changes envisioned in the JAM upgrade.

The referendum is still open for voting, but the initial response from the community has been overwhelmingly negative. At the time of writing, over 95 percent of the votes are against the proposal.

Department Updates​

HR Department​

OpenGov Watch has submitted a new proposal to hire a full-time ecosystem talent lead dedicated to OpenGov hiring and employee support. Unlike earlier attempts that relied on third-party agencies, this role would be a direct contributor to OpenGov, working across departments to support job listings, candidate outreach, and hiring coordination.

The proposal requests a one-year budget to be paid out monthly. If approved, the oversight will be handled by three curators: one each from the Parity and Web3 Foundation HR teams, and OpenGov Watch. Curators will not receive any compensation. Their only responsibility will be to assess the performance of the talent lead and approve monthly payouts.

Although we continuously communicated this effort for more than four months and actively sought feedback through multiple forums and social media channels, where responses were generally positive, the proposal is currently sitting at 40 percent approval with 16 days left in the decision period.

On a side note: this role and the ongoing work of Anaelle, who has been maintaining HR lists to track contributors across departments, are highly complementary. Recently published a DevRel directory, Anaelle’s lists are seemingly going to expand further into business development and other operational areas. We should acknowledge the great data Anaelle is putting out and work on consolidating these efforts to help build a more structured and efficient OpenGov environment.

Bounty Housekeeping​

A recent referendum passed to reinstate curators for three bounties and clean up a handful of inactive ones. On paper, it was a straightforward proposal. But the vote saw unexpected resistance. The main argument was that one of the bounties included, the Pioneers Prize, is not active and should be closed entirely. Therefore, some argued, the whole proposal should be rejected.

But this is a lack of understanding of basic proposal logic. Reinstating curators and closing a bounty are two entirely different actions. You need a separate referendum to close a bounty. Whether this proposal passes or not has no impact on the actual status of the Pioneers Prize. So, unless there is a real security concern, why block a cleanup process and interrupt other ongoing work?

If there is a strong case to close a bounty, then the right thing to do is to submit a bounty closure proposal, and not derail a maintenance referendum that also affects other active programs.

Budget Season​

Two department budgets approved, one waiting, and another on the way. With the UX Bounty expected to submit its budget proposal in July, we are starting to see the emergence of a more predictable budgeting rhythm across OpenGov departments, which will soon make up the total budget of the network as per our BASED budgeting framework.

Marketing Bounty Extended

The Marketing Bounty’s six-month budget proposal has been approved. The department will receive 200k DOT per month during this period and continues to operate with an expanded curator set, including two new additions.

IBP Funding Approved

The Infrastructure Builders Program also secured its requested funding of 1m DOT. The amount reflects the program’s maximum theoretical deployment capacity. The actual annualized cost was reported as $2.5m, which provides roughly one and a half years of runway under current DOT pricing and capacity expectations.

PAL Budget Proposal Live

The Polkadot Assurance Legion has submitted a new budget request to continue its security auditing operations. The ask is 500k DOT, intended to cover the next 12 to 18 months of work, depending on DOT valuation and project flow.

PAPI Bounty Tooling​

A new bounty tooling has been released by the PAPI team, and it is already receiving positive feedback from across the ecosystem. Curators from both the Events and UX bounties have shared their experience with the tool. The interface is clean and minimal, showing all active bounties in one place. It makes common tasks like initiating and bundling batch payouts easier, as well as extending bounties before they expire.

We strongly encourage all bounty curators to give it a try and are looking forward to further developments from the PAPI team.

Support the Watch​