Polkadot Growth Index 📈
Hello Builders!
Intro
We would like to propose and initiate discussion on a proposal that intends to support the growth of Polkadot ecosystem through an on-chain analytics tool that provides growth insights about specific dApps, Relay chains and parachains, while increasing transparency for the community.
This proposal is a continuation and extension of the ongoing work carried out by Tokenguard for the Polkadot ecosystem through OpenGov & W3F grants.
The Challenge
The growth of the entire Polkadot ecosystem, individual parachains and each dApp is related to users and the TVL they bring. The Polkadot ecosystem currently lacks a user-friendly on-chain analytics tool that addresses those issues, which has been addressed several times by the community and W3F.
In recent months, Tokenguard has undertaken numerous interviews with ecosystem builders to understand thechallenges they are facing and analytics needs that could accelerate growth of the ecosystem.
"We would like to understand, from an aggregate (not individual) level, the activities our users do, and the patterns in their behavior. I.e. they may do regular token, defi, social or nft activity. We would also like to understand which on-chain activities are done manually vs automated using bots. Understanding the patterns can help us optimize the features of our software to streamline important use cases and provide a better user experience."
"We would like to track new users. Where the users are coming from. How did the user fund their account. Correlation between users of different apps."
These and other answers revealed the problems and challenges of builders associated with the lack of analytics tools in the ecosystem:
— lack of transparency for the community
— lack of knowledge of user conversion
— high cost of a self-built analytics tool $50k-$150k
— fewer users due to a lack of knowledge of where they come from and how to target them
— lower TVL and funds inflow to the ecosystem
— lack of tools displaying on-chain data suitable for social media promotion
The Solution
Tokenguard proposes the integration of two existing growth analytics tools: the Ecosystem Growth Index and dApp Analytics for the Polkadot & Kusama Relay chains and three parachains with Smart Contract functionalities that are presently drawing significant user, fund, and builder attention. The solutions are currently used for 10 other chains and 25+ dApps. The presented solutions will provide insights into the growth of individual Parachains and dApps, aiding in the acquisition of new users and funds, and offering valuable insights for enhancing the retention of existing users.
The solution is ideal for promotional purposes and attracts the attention of new users to the ecosystem and dApps.
We value your feedback and are looking forward to supporting the ecosystem 🔥
Comments (4)
Comments (4)
Hello @Tokenguard,
Thank you for the proposal. Although I understand the necessity explained in the proposal and find the team well-suited for the solution, I must reject the proposal for the following reasons.
- Tokenguard seems to be already supporting many chains such as NEAR, Solana, Fantom, Arbitrum, BSC, Avalanche and more, and dApps such as Wormhole, Joepegs, DAM Finance, etc. Are you receiving any funding from these chains or dApps? I'm surprised that a chain as prominent as Polkadot isn't already supported by Tokenguard.
- As noted in your proposal, we recently granted over $2MM to the Dune integration proposal. Given this, I believe that ecosystem teams needing metrics should collaborate with the Colorful Notion team to obtain the necessary data. As far as my experience goes, the Colorful Notion team has been very open to new data requests.
I find the requested amount reasonable, but I doubt the necessity of an additional data analysis effort when we have multiple teams working at this front.
Best regards,
kukabi | Helikon
Hello - I wanted to provide some feedback on the proposal. It seems like the Tokenguard service is currently oriented towards a smart contract model, which you might find on ethereum, or a smart-contracts focused parachain like Moonbeam or a solochain. like Aleph Zero or Vara. I believe Polkadot to be structured differently, because the model of user interactions centers around not just smart contracts, but pallets, contracts and XCM across chains. Not to mention being architected as a relay chain, system chains, parachains and then application-specific chains/cores in the future, with the relay chain eventually becoming a chain with minimal features. I believe smart contracts will be important on various chains (e.g. pop, OpenEVM, etc.), but they do not seem to be the basis of activity today in Polkadot. For example, I believe the functionality frequently used on Polkadot today consists of opengov and staking on the relaychain, swapping/DCA on Hydra, LSDs on Acala/Bifrost, EVM/Swaps on Moonbeam, etc, as well as the XCM activities that help assets to flow around. I have not seen from the proposal that this activity is going to be tracked/measured by the development of the proposal, so it may not be measuring the growth of the ecosystem properly. If I am mistaken, could you list out the extrinsics that will be captured here beyond just smart contracts? Finally, as much as I appreciate what Vara is doing, as a solochain, I believe it is not a fit for funding by the Polkadot treasury for this particular purpose.
Hello @Tokenguard,
Thank you for the proposal. Although I understand the necessity explained in the proposal and find the team well-suited for the solution, I must reject the proposal for the following reasons.
I find the requested amount reasonable, but I doubt the necessity of an additional data analysis effort when we have multiple teams working at this front.
Best regards,
kukabi | Helikon
Hello - I wanted to provide some feedback on the proposal. It seems like the Tokenguard service is currently oriented towards a smart contract model, which you might find on ethereum, or a smart-contracts focused parachain like Moonbeam or a solochain. like Aleph Zero or Vara. I believe Polkadot to be structured differently, because the model of user interactions centers around not just smart contracts, but pallets, contracts and XCM across chains. Not to mention being architected as a relay chain, system chains, parachains and then application-specific chains/cores in the future, with the relay chain eventually becoming a chain with minimal features. I believe smart contracts will be important on various chains (e.g. pop, OpenEVM, etc.), but they do not seem to be the basis of activity today in Polkadot. For example, I believe the functionality frequently used on Polkadot today consists of opengov and staking on the relaychain, swapping/DCA on Hydra, LSDs on Acala/Bifrost, EVM/Swaps on Moonbeam, etc, as well as the XCM activities that help assets to flow around. I have not seen from the proposal that this activity is going to be tracked/measured by the development of the proposal, so it may not be measuring the growth of the ecosystem properly. If I am mistaken, could you list out the extrinsics that will be captured here beyond just smart contracts? Finally, as much as I appreciate what Vara is doing, as a solochain, I believe it is not a fit for funding by the Polkadot treasury for this particular purpose.