Dear Polkadot Community,

I propose initiating a discussion to address marketing and community-building proposals, such as those resembling the Polkadot Africa campaign, or Politecnico di Milano, Blockchain & Web3 Observatory 2025 Partnership, which seek significant treasury funding without demonstrating clear alignment with the ecosystem’s long-term goals. My concern is that some proposals may prioritize personal or organizational gain over Polkadot’s success, potentially draining the treasury for efforts that could be driven by committed community members at little to no cost.

As an invested member of the Polkadot ecosystem with skin in the game, since early days, I believe that promotional activities, events, and developer engagement should primarily come from those already dedicated to the project’s success, often pro bono or with minimal funding (like i have been doing since i decided to come in). Proposals requesting substantial capital raise red flags, as they may indicate a lack of genuine investment in Polkadot’s future, suggesting instead an intent to exploit the treasury for personal betterment.

To protect the treasury and ensure funds are allocated effectively, I propose the following measures for discussion:

1. Mandatory Investment Disclosure: Require proposers to disclose their financial or non-financial investment in Polkadot (e.g., token holdings, active contributions to the ecosystem) to demonstrate alignment with the project’s success.
2. Pro Bono Expectation for Marketing: Establish a guideline that marketing and community-building efforts should primarily be driven by existing community members or volunteers, with funding reserved for exceptional cases with clear, measurable outcomes (e.g., specific dApps built, verifiable developer retention).
3. Stricter Evaluation Criteria: Implement a rigorous review process for treasury proposals, requiring:
   • Detailed justification for why funding is necessary versus leveraging community resources.
   • Concrete, measurable deliverables tied directly to Polkadot’s technical or adoption goals.
   • A sustainability plan to reduce reliance on treasury funds over time.
4. Community Veto Mechanism: Introduce a faster mechanism for the community to flag and reject proposals suspected of being opportunistic at an early stage, preventing resource-intensive reviews of low-value submissions.

I urge the community to discuss these measures and consider rejecting proposals that resemble money grabs at their inception. As a starting point, I vote “nay” on any marketing or community proposal that does not meet these standards, including those similar to the Polkadot Africa example, or the Politecnico di Milano, Blockchain & Web3 Observatory 2025 Partnership, which, while eventually commendable in effort (some may consider it, i dont), raises questions about funding necessity given the potential for pro bono contributions.

This is my position, share your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Veritus