# Apillon Web3 development platform as a common good infrastructure - Polkadot Treasury Proposal

**URL:** <https://forum.polkadot.network/t/apillon-web3-development-platform-as-a-common-good-infrastructure-polkadot-treasury-proposal/3145>\
**Category:** Ecosystem\
**Tags:** treasury-proposal\
**Created:** [June 19, 2023, 12:43pm UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/apillon-web3-development-platform-as-a-common-good-infrastructure-polkadot-treasury-proposal/3145 "2023-06-19T12:43:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rich](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/rich/32/159_2.png) [@rich](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/rich)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 10:05am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/apillon-web3-development-platform-as-a-common-good-infrastructure-polkadot-treasury-proposal/3145/3 "2023-06-20T10:05:46Z")

</div>

I read your proposal and wiki yesterday - it is incredibly thorough, well written and considered.

You are definitely focusing on a clear pain point - essentially you are aiming to create an ‘operating system’ framework for the Substrate ecosystem.

## High level

> Apillon pursues Polkadot’s multi-chain vision by seamlessly linking supported parachains in  
> an opinionated manner and translating them into decentralized microservices called Web3  
> Services.

Am I correct in thinking you want to create a framework for something akin to ‘iOS’ on polkadot’s decentralised settlement and business logic (firmware) core?

 ![Screenshot 2023-06-20 at 10.49.41](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/polkadot2/original/2X/2/2193ad4c19113d40f2effd6710de7148d19a8942.png)

## Integrations / ecosystem positioning

- Is this project expressly focused on abstracting the specific logic of current parachains to Polkadot?

- Will you be doing the same for Kusama?

- Will you be doing the same for solo-chains that are not part of either relay?

## Parachain Dependability section

> Polkadot’s approach to creating a competitive market is leasing parachain slots to niche  
> parachains. But it could also lead to certain services not having a redundancy offering,  
> making them risky to governance pivot in the long run. In case of a service failure, Apillon is  
> thus currently unable to provide service alternatives or redundancy

Apillon’s ‘opinionated service’ is as you correctly state entirely dependent on lower level dependancies that may well not have continuous uptime, long term resilience or predictable governance.

Without some guaranteed consistency here, why would developers want to risk building on Apillon if the sands shift under their feet in a manner entirely consistent with the issues of ‘platform risk’ that pervade ‘Web2’?

This is effectively the primary case against Apillon’s ability to deliver on its vision.

Do you have any views on this? For example, you could just include system chains?

## Governance / Token / Funding sections

> As a common good project, Apillon should be funded by the ecosystem and, in exchange,  
> governed by the Polkadot community. This would ensure that the path of project evolution  
> remains transparent, open-source, and within community needs.

> Post-funding changes to Apillon:  
> ⧓ The Apillon platform becomes open-source.  
> ⧓ Apillon’s product offering is governed via Polkadot governance.  
> ⧓ Apillon’s NCTR token is removed from the open-source project; the main token used  
> is DOT.  
> ⧓ Apillon becomes the first Common Good Infrastructure project on Polkadot. It does  
> not pursue a parachain slot in the first year of operation.  
> ⧓ Apillon continues large-scale marketing activities and establishes clear adoption  
> KPIs.

This seems well thought through and could become a model for other common good / system chains that do not fit easily into current 'parachain / L1/L2 frameworks.

I guess in answer to my above questions, since value accrues directly to DOT and not KSM, it makes most sense to only include parachains bonded and incentivised via the DOT token.

Fee structures also seem smart.

## Final question

> [@Matjaz](#):
>
> The official discussion is taking place on Polkassembly - feel free to join us there as well.

Why do you think Polkassembly’s off-chain interface is more official that say here?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/apillon-web3-development-platform-as-a-common-good-infrastructure-polkadot-treasury-proposal/3145)._