This message is posted here because it was, of course, deleted from the forum — just like the long list below. And I have absolutely nothing to do with the creator of this thread. : You are addressing a sensitive point within the ecosystem, but Polkadot needs it to bounce back: disconnected idealism is a real obstacle to progress. It is a stance where some actors, trapped in a utopian vision, refuse to consider reality as it is, with its constraints, limits, and unforeseen challenges. This attitude, though motivated by noble intentions, can paradoxically slow down or even block an

Idealism, tempered by a good understanding of the field, is a powerful driving force. It encourages imagining a better world, daring to innovate, and questioning the status quo. But as soon as it drifts away from pragmatism, it becomes a hindrance. Refusing to acknowledge real difficulties or minimizing technical or human challenges closes the door to effective solutions

For an ecosystem to evolve, a delicate balance must be found between ambitious vision and taking realities into account. It is by accepting compromises and confronting ideas with practice that we can build a sustainable future. Disconnected idealism, if not corrected, hinders this essential dy

Recognizing this limitation is not giving up but a necessary step to move forward. By integrating dreams and reality, we can open true paths for improvement and chart the course of progress.

This is what I’m trying to change so that the ecosystem can reach new heights of adoption through this critique :

I invite you to review my full critique of OpenGov : https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/3236
While it contains a few inaccuracies, they highlight two key issues: first, the lack of clear communication; and second, the fact that even with my daily deep dives into Polkadot and my solid academic backgroundit remains extraordinarily difficult to cross-reference information and discern the truth about what has been achieved and what still lies ahead.
I’m just an individual passionate about Polkadot. I find the technology remarkable, and I genuinely don’t understand how such severe economic mistakes can be made nor why it takes so long to recognize and fix them.

I don’t want to see the project collapse or be absorbed, but I seriously doubt we’ll survive the next bear run. Our user base is already fragile; in the event of a mass exodus, we’d lack the treasury to sustain ourselves, and our developers would migrate to ecosystems offering better incentives.Not quite, in reality. With the new treasury model tied to fixed inflation, the treasury can never truly run out — it will continue to exist as long as DOT hasn’t reached zero. But DOT is asymptotically approaching zero — it tends toward it without ever actually reaching it.Polkadot made another fundamental economic mistake by relying almost exclusively on yield-seeking investors, offering high APYs at the expense of speculative investors. When these two groups are not balanced, the system becomes vulnerable and risks collapsing.

By prioritizing high yields, Polkadot attracted a large number of long-term holders seeking stable passive income but neglected the speculative traders who provide market liquidity and movement. This imbalance weakens market depth and its ability to absorb shocks.

In the long run, such a disparity can lead to widespread loss of confidence, massive sell-offs, and a rapid decline in the asset’s value.

This model creates an illusion of sustainability while structurally increasing downward pressure on an already weak market. Since it relies on perpetual inflation — and therefore continuous dilution — it steadily erodes the value of the asset.

Investors see all of this. They anticipate, model, and prepare for every possible scenario. They don’t just follow trends; they assess risks, adapt their strategies, and avoid systems that appear toxic or economically unsound in the long run.

In my view, replacing the previous model was a serious economic mistake. In the short term, it may have helped balance the books. But in the long term, it accelerates depreciation, fuels disengagement, and undermines confidence in the entire system. We are in the middle of a bull run this is the perfect time to implement structural changes, leverage the market’s momentum, and capitalize on our visibility to attract both users and talent.

Retail investors are essential. Many of us share this perspective don’t ignore us behind the veil of utopian ideology. .Continuous DOT dilution is steadily eroding our portfolios, and the absence of any coherent economic strategy poses a grave risk to every investor in the project. In contrast, OpenAI has adopted a philanthropic (albeit initially unprofitable) model: it builds a high-performance, free platform without tapping into the capital of small holders, only later introducing monetization. Polkadot, by contrast, relies on perpetual inflation of small holders’ stakes to fund an abstract vision, never establishing a sustainable long-term economic model. What’s worse still is that there appears to be no genuine will at Polkadot’s core to change course and actually create lasting value—arguably the most damning failure of all. Remember, markets live on confidence: macroeconomic “data” are often nothing more than convenient fiction, yet as long as participants believe in them, the system functions. Strip away that belief, and even the best-designed economy collapses. Polkadot’s persistent neglect of this fundamental truth leaves its entire model teetering on a bluffAfter four years of consistently disastrous economic metrics (see the financial data in my critique), unchecked DOT inflation remains the norm. It’s naïve to treat Polkadot as a public good generously gifted by its founder—Gavin Wood, architect of both the Polkadot and Ethereum ICOs—when in reality he’s using our capital to endlessly bankroll his dream without delivering a solid economic framework. This feels profoundly disingenuous.

What’s even more astonishing is how simple the fixes could be: we already have a “flashgip” in development—JAM—that could easily attract investors and speculators. Yet for a man as brilliant as Mr. Wood to publicly claim that this mechanism can be instantly copied borders on dishonesty or deep selfishness. No institutional investor will commit a penny to a technology that offers no return on investment and lacks basic economic viability. Or simply hold a referendum to mandate the use of the DOT token across the various parachains. This would have allowed, much like OpenAI, to build trust and create value. Once users were on board, we could have changed the model and removed this requirement. Progress needs to be made step by step, building block by block. Clinging to hopes of a DOT ETF under current conditions is nothing more than a comforting chimera.

We can love Web3 and decentralization, but we must remain clear-eyed about the realities of human society and economic systems. OpenGov led by a minority, as widely acknowledged across Reddit and Polkadot forums may be conceptually interesting, offering indirect centralization and potentially faster decision-making. But clearly, the decisions made so far have not been effective. If they had been, we wouldn’t be in this situation, and I wouldn’t be here trying to keep the ship afloat.

Markets are built on trust. The success of a project depends on its ability to earn that trust and that success, in turn, is what attracts users and institutional investors.

Everything else starts to resemble research-based companies what we commonly call “biotechs” in the stock market that sell a dream (like restoring sight to the blind) without ever proving a sustainable economic model. These companies typically end up diluting their equity through instruments like convertible notes or toxic financings, only to be acquired cheaply by competitors after failing to gain meaningful traction.

If this is Polkadot’s actual vision, then it should be stated honestly to investors. But let’s be clear: if you say that out loud, Polkadot is dead. That leaves only one credible path forward show, now, that you want to make this project a real success. That means enacting clear, tangible, visible economic changes, and pivoting to a strategy grounded in real-world adoption not in passive hope for maturity or an eventual buyout by friendly insiders ( New JAM Token). Bitcoin built its adoption primarily through the price appreciation of its token. Thanks to a snowball effect, this price growth established it as a store of value—far more than through its technological features. Its success was driven by a built-in scarcity mechanism: a hard cap of 21 million tokens, which fueled exponential price increases as demand rose. This dynamic sent a powerful signal of confidence to investors, long before the public fully understood or appreciated the technology behind it.

Polkadot, on the other hand, is attempting the opposite—seeking to impose adoption purely through the robustness of its technology, without creating strong economic incentives. Technically, this could work, but only under one condition: that the innovation is protected and that the ecosystem recognizes and leverages its intellectual property. As it stands, this is not the case. As Mr. Wood himself has stated, the system can be copied as soon as tomorrow. Without a strategy to make the model economically non-replicable and attractive to capital, Polkadot will remain overshadowed by less innovative but far more profitable projects.he token price is in free fall, the economic metrics are alarming, and a large portion of retail investors have lost money. This has created a deep atmosphere of distrust — even disgust — leading to an involuntary boycott of the network. There’s a total absence of network effect: little enthusiasm, few users. Without developers galvanized by visionary leadership, it’s a loop of self-sabotage.

And when I talk about developers, I’m not referring to engineers who can simply code a parachain. I’m talking about entrepreneurial minds — Steve Jobs-like profiles — capable of carrying a bold vision, imagining a viral application, and rallying top-tier talent around it. These kinds of visionaries won’t naturally gravitate toward Polkadot in its current state, because they’re not drawn to our financial metrics or the lack of network momentum.

The core issue isn’t UX — it’s the absence of a credible, attractive economic model. This strategic void is what’s preventing Polkadot from achieving mass adoption and from attracting the kind of minds that spark revolutions.

We don’t need disconnected utopians waiting for the wind to shift. We need builders, leaders, and people willing to face market realities and take action. If Polkadot wants to stay in the race, it must demonstrate today that it has a coherent, sustainable vision rooted in solid economics. Otherwise, history will remember us only as a wasted ideal.

In the short run, the market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine; and at time T, it’s just confidence.

I truly appreciate your courage and honesty in raising this issue. Not many are willing to speak up about internal community problems, especially when it concerns moderation practices that may be ideologically biased.

The issues you highlighted are serious and clearly grounded in real community experiences — especially when they impact onboarding for new developers and contributors. A community that feels overly controlled or ideologically gated can stifle growth, no matter how strong the underlying technology is.

As a suggestion for improvement, you could consider structuring your proposal more formally — perhaps including specific examples or screenshots (if available), and framing the solutions in terms of governance mechanisms. This would strengthen your case and help prevent the feedback from being dismissed as a personal grievance.

Regardless, you’ve succeeded in voicing something that many others likely feel but are hesitant to express. I support your call for a more open, inclusive, and professionally managed community.