Polkadot Growth Index 📈 and AI Insights 💡
Beneficiary:Hello Builders!
Intro
This proposal supports growth of Polkadot Relay & Parachains through on-chain growth insights about specific dApps and parachains, while increasing transparency for their teams & community.
The full discussion about the proposal and poll signals are available here. Initial poll signals:
Aye: 7 votes (100%)
Nay: 0 votes (0%)
The Challenge
The growth of the entire Polkadot ecosystem and individual parachains is related to dApps and wallet activity they bring into the ecosystem - users, TVL & fees.
Parachain teams currently lack a user-friendly growth tool that makes it easy to understand the condition of each of these metrics, which has been addressed several times by the community and W3F. In recent months, Tokenguard has conducted numerous interviews with Ecosystem & dApp builders:
"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 understand 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:
❌ lack of knowledge of user conversion, engagement & churns,
❌ lower TVL and funds inflow into the ecosystem,
❌ lack of tool displaying data suitable for social media promotion,
The Solution
Tokenguard proposes integration of three existing growth tools:
✅ Ecosystem Growth Index for the Polkadot & Kusama Relay chains and 3 parachains with Smart Contract functionalities - Moonbeam, Astar & Vara.
✅ dApp Growth Index for dApps deployed on the parachains.
✅ dApp AI Insights for dApp builders and community to understand the most important events within their products.
Presented solutions will provide insights into the growth of individual parachains and dApps, improving 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 attracting the attention of new users to the ecosystem and dApps.
We value your feedback and are looking forward to support the ecosystem 🔥
Comments (4)
Proposal Failed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (55)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (31)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
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.