A semi-coherent ecosystem development strategy for Polkadot

After a month of work, I can finally present the first version of a collectively developed strategy and direction for Polkadot. It was assembled through countless discussions online (Twitter, Telegram, Discord) and offline (Polkadot Summit, Sub0).

The strategy gathers the state of the ecosystem, the challenges it faces, the objectives to overcome our challenges, and a list of solutions.

The idea is to help agents in the ecosystem coordinate and highlight the things that need work and would bring huge benefits to the ecosystem.

A semi-coherent strategy

This first draft is like JAM - semi-coherent. The strategy still has some holes and needs your support! Please read it and share your thoughts.

The Strategy

  • Introduction explains why we need a strategy
  • Vision proposes a vision that can act as a central coordinating thought
  • State of the Ecosystem focuses on current developments and highlights some of the best things the Polkadot ecosystem offers
  • Challenges summarizes the most discussed issues currently present in the ecosystem
  • Objectives summarizes the objectives we have arrived at through our discussions.
  • Solutions summarizes the solutions and actions suggested to overcome current issues and implement our objectives.

How you can help

At this stage, I look for two things:

  1. Critical reception - does it make sense for you? What would you change? Where can you help?
  2. Fill the holes - some parts are still missing or fairly blank. Any input is helpful

Actions:

  • Feedback
    • Provide in-document comments in Notion
    • Join the Telegram group (noisy, but every comment is read and integrated)
    • Discuss in this thread
  • Share it with other ecosystem agents

Next steps

Going forward from here, we will break out the specific solutions into initiatives, starting with user experience and developer experience, and bring together people, resources, and attention to get the issues solved. Additionally, I will continue to integrate feedback that flows in. I still have a big backlog of feedback already gathered and am working to integrate it every day.

Thank you for making Polkadot wonderful!

13 Likes

Very needed approach.

I have not gone into detail (yet) but I would like to add a point that is very related to strategy, as I understand it: Budget/Financing, and the treasury itself. To develop an strategy it is needed to allocate time/resources to go in certain direction, and budget/funding allocation is a treasure map of a strategy.

This is a screenshot of dot treasury, where the tendency of the treasure funds is clear, which comes to the following question - that is strategical:

  • In what we are allocating funds and what it is impact? Ex: How much are we expending in - for example in Marketing or in Technical development? Is this what we want? ← strategy fits here
  • Once a direction is set, then a buckets of resources can/will be allocated to address these objetives and so on.

I will come later to this with more time… but those are my two quick cents.

3 Likes

Well done on putting this together, but the Solution section as it relates to BD really only reiterates the problems, and doesn’t offer a solution. Yes we need BD, yes we need geographical coverage and vertical expertise, but how is this funded? I personally don’t believe in the retroactive bounty style reward for BD, and i’m not sure what is happening with Giotto’s bounty for attractive top BD talent. So what can we do? BD sales cycles can take up to 12-18 months in some cases, and you can do everything right and still lose (usually to a ‘no decision’ as opposed to a competitive lose). Will Treasury fund a BD team with a commitment for 2-3 years. I doubt it. I see Polkadot BD as the main unsolved piece from this decentralisation effort.

1 Like

I agree with you @NickD. This chapter is one of the two that are really not answered satisfactorily so far.

I would love for someone with BD expertise to reach out and talk this through. I have learned that the BD bounty people are working in the background to set up a better system, but I don’t really have any insight into what they have in mind.

Better organizing around this topic is definitely necessary!

1 Like

Greetings everyone,

Alice und_Bob, Thank you for facilitating this discussion and all the great work already done.

Just came across the “Uncle Gav needs you!” call two days ago. My feedback expresses the need to create greater engagement in the proposals and discussions and reward valuable contributions within the polkassembly participation. Additionally, I aim to lay the groundwork for future decentralised moderation practices.

To achieve these goals, I propose two simple tools:

  1. Identity Verification System: A mechanism ensuring that each participant in a discussion has only one identity.

  2. Non-Transferable Reputation Tokens: Introducing a gamified approach to incentivise and reward meaningful contributions while discouraging irrelevant or disruptive comments.

An example of a practical application of these concepts could be implemented when commenting on a discussion or a proposal:

  • All participants receive two tokens; one rewards the best contribution, and the other rewards an irrelevant contribution.
  • At the end of the voting or the end of the discussion period, the participants, if they decide to do so, can send the two tokens to whom they think fit its definition. When they do this, they receive a reputation token back.

To maintain impartiality, participant identities are revealed only after the conclusion of the process.

These tools can have different use cases in the sphere of moderation and incentivising participation. With JAM pushing AI boundaries for creation and creativity to the limits, we can start building our defences against social attacks fueled by fake news or fraudulent identities.

The idea is to bring a decentralised certified identity and a reputation to Polkadot DAO.

Thank you for reading.

1 Like

This highlights reasons for concern regarding Indonesia.