I’d like to raise a question about Kusama’s long-term governance structure. Recent signals point in different directions, and clarity would help the community make informed decisions about where to invest effort.
The Apparent Contradiction
Signal 1: Kusama as Independent Chain
https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/573, passed in August 2025, committed Kusama to an independent JAM upgrade path—32 cores, 1-second block time, a configuration tailored to Kusama’s smaller economy rather than simply mirroring Polkadot. The proposal explicitly framed Kusama as having its own trajectory.
Signal 2: Kusama Governance via Bridge
[P<>K bridge] Kusama Fellowship replaced by the Polkadot Fellowship acting over the bridge · Issue #484 · polkadot-fellows/runtimes · GitHub , opened in October 2024, proposes retiring the Kusama Technical Fellowship entirely. Under this model, the Polkadot Fellowship would govern Kusama remotely via a bridge. The most recent update (January 2025) indicates this was postponed to H2 2025, pending Kusama’s governance migration to Asset Hub.
These two directions seem to be in tension. One positions Kusama as an independent experimental network with its own technical path. The other positions it as a subsidiary governed remotely from Polkadot.
Why This Matters
Community members are actively building Kusama-specific proposals:
- Economic differentiation (burn mechanisms vs. Polkadot’s hard cap)
- Validator set optimization for Kusama’s scale
- Kusama-specific runtime configurations
If Kusama’s governance is being consolidated under Polkadot, these efforts may be misallocated. Proposals that assume Kusama can chart an independent course would face a different reality—one where Kusama-specific decisions compete for attention with Polkadot priorities, reviewed by a Fellowship whose primary focus is elsewhere.
Conversely, if Kusama is meant to remain independent, the community should know that too. It affects how we engage with governance, which proposals we prioritize, and how we think about Kusama’s identity relative to Polkadot.
Questions
I’d appreciate clarity from those with visibility into the strategic direction:
- Is the plan in issue #484 still being pursued? The H2 2025 timeline has passed. Is this delayed, abandoned, or in progress?
- How does remote governance via bridge reconcile with WFC 573’s vision of Kusama-specific technical decisions? Who makes Kusama-focused tradeoffs if the Fellowship is Polkadot-centric?
- What is Kusama’s intended long-term identity? Is it a permanent experimental network with its own governance, or a testing ground that will eventually be governed as a Polkadot appendage?
I’m not advocating for a particular answer—I’m asking for transparency so the community can plan accordingly. Building on Kusama requires understanding what Kusama is meant to become.
Tagging those who may have context: @acatangiu (issue #484 author), @olanod (WFC 573 author), and any Parity or W3F representatives who can speak to the strategic intent.