Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Treasury Proposal: Retroactive Funding for "A Report on Parachain Netflows until March 2023"
An analysis was performed to visualize netflows of DOT/KSM between parachains. Traditionally, exchange netflows are defined as the aggregate inflow and outflow of tokens on exchanges. We translate the concept to parachain netflows as the aggregate movement of DOT/KSM between parachains.
This proposal seeks retroactive funding of the project.
The final solution contains
A Github repository with all the results: The full report: Polkadot Parachain Netflows until March 2023, charts of the netflows for Polkadot and Kusama, Source code to produce the visualization, datasets to produce the visualization, a video that explains the project and summarizes the findings
Comments (2)
Hello team,
Below are some questions and suggestions:
Q: Was this analysis commissioned by any parachain? If yes, please indicate which ones as well as the details of the initial request.
Q: Can you please provide more details about this perceived issue? One sentence is not enough for explaining the relevance of XCM transfers of DOT to DeFi and its users, let alone the relevance of the report in this context.
Q: Is this deliverable being used by stakeholders? If so, please provide quantitative/qualitative data that reflects the impact of this solution/initiative in the ecosystem.
Suggestion: This proposal needs to include some more data to back the need for this solution to be deployed and maintained over time.
Q: Can you please provide some comparative rates from existing data aggregation projects in the ecosystem? This is important to help the community assess the hourly rate requested.
Suggestion: Given that the 26hours of work completed involve various non-technical items such as social media/content creation, marketing, and project management; it would be more judicious to assign separate hourly rate based on the complexity of the tasks completed. Ideally, data analysis tasks and public promotion tasks should be billed at different rates.
Final suggestion: All in all, this proposal seems to be more of an independent/ad hoc contribution to the ecosystem, and, as such, it might be more suitable for a tip proposal rather than a treasury spend proposal. See the comparable units of work below that recently received a tip:
Sorry, feel the need to respond to anaelle, not proposal author.
Why is this relevant?
If people only did work that was requested, not much would happen.
The point of retroactive payments is to assess work done without needing upfront approval.
Without anyone actually digging into on-chain metrics, there is no way to analyse anything. We don't know what we don't know.
Stakeholders use zero data right now. This is at least a move in a positive direction.
Makes no sense, per previous points.
why should an hourly rate be relevant? this is a unique offering, if it were competitive then that makes sense. until then, people should charge for their originality.
This makes no sense. Its a project fee.
great work, positive direction, unique offering. only q - why not propose to kusama?