Decentralised Voices Cohort 4: Harbour Industrial Capital

Governance
1

Hello Polkadot!

My name is Max Rebol and I am the co-founder and CEO of Harbour Industrial Capital, a Polkadot- focused VC Fund based in HK, and co-founder of PolkaPort East, a growth initiative for Polkadot in HK. In this forum post I will make the case for why Harbour Industrial Capital should become a DV in Cohort 4. (Follow us on X!)

Delegation Addresses

Polkadot: 14x5RbyJxD6KvNyncbJQuJJJ3zHinXg57YKwhJ7q9T9aJq4n
Kusama: GXPwb47inqnEVniRf4Tf6q9LxaJttw7VRSCvfQS5ALYsDn2

Background

Originally from Austria, I spent most of my career in the Greater China region. After completing my PhD in Shanghai, I worked at consulting companies in Shanghai and HK, focusing on investment research and due diligence. I subsequently worked six years in the research departments of two investment banks in HK (Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley).

First steps in Crypto

I learned about Bitcoin in 2015, and became active in the HK crypto community, participating in the early Bitcoin and Ethereum meetups in this city. I discovered Polkadot around the time of the private sale, where I participated myself with a small amount. Excited about Gavin’s vision, I quickly became somewhat of a spokesperson for Polkadot in HK crypto circles.

Harbour Industrial Capital

I co-founded Harbour Industrial Capital (HIC) together with Mario Altenburger in 2021. We are registered in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in HK. As of early Q1 2025, our fund has an AUM of around US$25 million. We have raised this capital from private investors such as Family Offices, and subsequently invested it in over 28 Polkadot-based projects. The primary method of deployment were parachain auctions, as part of which we locked up DOT in exchange for a fixed amount of parachain tokens. More recently we have also made direct VC investment in Polkadot-based projects. In early 2025 we launched Fund II which is currently raising capital.

PolkaPort East

Together with Thibault Perréard and Vincent Chan I started PolkaPort East, a growth and IR initiative focused on HK and the Greater Bay area. The goal is highlighting Polkadot’s technology, bringing more projects into the ecosystem, and attracting more investors to deploy capital. We do this through a series of in-person events, such as monthly meetups, a fireside chat series with parachain founders, VC dinners and large flagship events such as Web3 Festival and HK Fintech Week. Our efforts were recognized by the Web3 Foundation in June 2024 as PolkaPort East was admitted to the Decentralised Futures program.

Political Philosophy

The primary political fault line in today’s OpenGov – I believe – runs between the fiscally conservative and those who spend more liberally.

The conservatives have held the upper hand throughout the first half year of OpenGov, when spending for anything other than core-devs was hard to come by. In late 2023, Giotto rose to prominence with a more liberal approach to spending. However, in early 2025 he exited OpenGov, as a result of which, the pendulum swung back to the fiscally conservative.

The ChaosDAO Problem

Currently the discourse in OpenGov is dominated by ChaosDAO, who publicly take pride in NAY’ing proposals that don’t serve their own core interests. That in itself is not a bad thing in an environment where money flows easily and fast. However, that is not the case in today’s OpenGov, as can be seen from the latest OpenGov.watch report. Spending in Q4 plummeted to levels not seen since Q3 2023 and Chaos DAO’s approach of calling anyone who comes up with a more innovative proposal a “grifter”, has greatly contributed to this decline. What is worse, the unwelcoming environment to new entrants and the name calling has already dissuaded many promising projects who would have liked to build on Polkadot, to move into other crypto ecosystems instead.

Balancing the Budget

Fears of the treasury running out of runway have been overblown, and recent changes to inflation which result in stable income of 18m DOT per year mean that the treasury remains in a healthy shape. The bigger concern is overall Polkadot adoption. Providing incentives for quality projects to come and build on Polkadot should be a priority. We need to reach the escape velocity when the mere existence of great projects on Polkadot attracts more great projects, even without additional incentives. We are not there yet, and until then, the treasury should provide countercyclical stimulus.

My political philosophy for this candidacy could therefore be summarised in the following three bullet points:

  • Between the fiscal conservatives and liberals, err on the side of the latter (for now)
  • Call out actual grifters and NAY their proposals
  • Become more fiscally conservative as adoption increases

Why become a DV Delegate?

I have been actively engaged in OpenGov since inception. The reason HIC always just votes with a small number of DOT is a simple one: The vast majority of the DOT in our fund are (still) locked up in parachain auctions, and therefore are not eligible for voting. However, as a large DOT holder, we have plenty of skin in the game and would like to help shape the direction of OpenGov.

Summary of Polkadot Events

Over the past few years, I have participated many Polkadot-related events and activities (click on the links for photos and videos):

Note of Conflicts of Interest

As a large investor in Polkadot with many Polkadot-based portfolio companies, we are well aware of potential Conflicts of Interest. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to state that for any proposals coming from our portfolio companies or those that directly benefit HIC we will always vote abstain.

Note on Term Limits
The President of the United States - like that of most developed countries - has a limit of two terms. This is an important feature of a democracy. The absence of term limits quickly leads to autocracy. Like the old adage, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. I therefore believe that similarly, the W3F should institute two term limits for DVs. Even in the absence of such limits, I pledge that I would not stand for more than two terms.

Concluding Thoughts

We launched this candidacy because of a genuine concern for Polkadot. Its technology is second-to-none, yet it is still punching below its weight. DOT is the largest asset in our fund, so we have a strong vested interest in its success. DV is a pretty unique “Attempt At Governance”, as it conveys significant political sway for a relatively short period of time. I hope to use this power to help shape a brighter future for Polkadot. We are in this for the long run.

6 Likes
2

Hello Max, attacking other delegates in your own DV application just shows you are not mature enough to carry out the role yourself. Stick with what positive things you can bring in. Having negativity in your own application is not a good look, “Pick me, bc they suck” will not resonate well with the people who will execute the decisions.

1 Like
3

And yet you have publicly endorsed Saxemburg?
https://x.com/harbour_ind_cap/status/1894617204316148105

1 Like
4

Well, you are the one who is using inflammatory language here, not me. I did lay out my reasons why I think ChaosDAO should not be reelected, and fully stand behind this statement. The fact that “bemtikru” is a brand new anon account that never posted before, also confirms my theses that ChaoDAO likes to go after their political opponents with anonymous alt accounts, which is something I will stand up against.

5

It is spelt Saxemberg, not Saxemburg. And yes, I did endorse them publicly, because I think they have been doing an excellent job as DV in the past – Am I not allowed to do so?

6

Apologies to Saxemberg for the misspelling!

You are of course allowed to endorse whoever you want :slight_smile:

But your stated reason for opposing ChaosDAO’s DV status is repeat terms, and Saxemberg has also served repeatedly, so I can’t help suspecting that you have an ulterior objection.

1 Like
7

I am unapologetically for terms limits for all DVs. But as long as W3F hasn’t implemented these limits yet, I’d obviously prefer the best DV to get reelected. What would you do?

1 Like
8

For clarification, bemtikru has an established online presence beyond this platform (see twitter). Regardless, the reference to ChaosDAO seems unrelated to the application.

You wrote more on The ChaosDAO Problem (753 characters) VS Why become a DV Delegate? (384 characters).

No hate from me either, please don’t take this as inflammatory language. I wish you the best of luck for Cohort 4.

1 Like
9

@Nadro-J Appreciate your thoughtful comment here. Btw, if you read the entire application such as the section on political philosophy, it is of course much longer than 384 characters :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I think it is absolutely fair game in politics to criticise the policies of an opposing party during an election campaign. It is something that happens all the time in real world democracies during election cycles, no matter if you look to the US, Germany or Japan. You are right, I did point out problems with ChaosDAO’s policies, and still fully stand behind these comments. Of course there are political fault lines between different parties in OpenGov, but if anything, this just means that Polkadot is turning more and more into a fully fledged democracy.

10

Your comments about ChaosDAO are baseless:

NAY’ing proposals that don’t serve their own core interests

The only interest shared by the voting members of ChaosDAO is the well-being and future of the ecosystem. Other than that, like any similarly organic community, we don’t have all that much in common and have varying—often orthogonal—interests, ideologies, and preferences.

Chaos DAO’s approach of calling anyone who comes up with a more innovative proposal a “grifter”

Members of ChaosDAO speak for themselves, but this is not our approach–some of us don’t hesitate to call grifters grifters, but that has nothing to do with whether their proposals are more or less innovative.

I think it is absolutely fair game in politics to criticise the policies of an opposing party during an election campaign. It is something that happens all the time in real world democracies during election cycles

Did something change? Because afaik DV isn’t an election and there’s no democracy involved at all—it’s just a Web3 Foundation appointment, plain and simple, right? (fwiw OpenGov isn’t democracy either. It’s one-token-one-vote, not one-person-one-vote, after all.)
There is democracy within ChaosDAO, though—voting members speak freely in discussing every referendum in private, then vote anonymously in a one-person-one-vote system, using the now-widely-adopted ChaosDAO OpenGov bot from the great @Nadro-J

4 Likes
11

@mister_cole Thank you for your comments. I maintain that CD’s voting record shows that you have been predominately voting for proposals that serve the core interests of the DAO members, and have been vocally NAYing those of people unaffiliated with the DAO. You may disagree with this characterisation, but it is still my position.

However, I would like to end this conversation on a positive note: CD has been very successful in organically attracting non-DV delegations (currently around 5m DOT). It has as such successfully “graduated” from the DV program and no longer relies on the W3F’s delegation.

12

I maintain that CD’s voting record shows that you have been predominately voting for proposals that serve the core interests of the DAO members

This is a very serious allegation to make without any evidence of fact. Care to back that statement up with data or evidence? As Carl Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

3 Likes
13

There is no point re-litigating the past. I know I won’t be able to change your point of view on this, but nor will you be able to change mine. All information is out there; people can go take a look and make up their own mind.

14

What do you mean? You’re here taking a stand in your DV application against ChaosDAO. Back up these allegations with facts.

3 Likes
15

What past? You have made accusations a centerpiece of your application for a DV delegation, and when asked to corroborate them, you have a responsibility to do so. If you can’t, well, it’s just scurrilous politicking.

16

Don’t take yourself too important, it is not the “Centrepiece” of my application, just a little side note. Everyone can draw their own conclusions :wink:

Btw, is ChaosDAO actually even running for cohort 4? Deadline was yesterday, and I haven’t seen any application from you on this forum yet.

17

The only possible conclusion is that you are making scurrilous accusations that you can’t defend.

ChaosDAO has applied for cohort 4

18

ok, great. would you mind sharing the link to the ChaosDAO DV cohort 4 application please? I can’t seem to find it here in this forum. Maybe we can continue the conversation there, since in any case you seem to be more interested in discussing ChaosDAO, rather than the merits of my own application :sweat_smile:

19

It was submitted to the W3F, and we’re discussing ChaosDAO here because you made scurrilous accusations about ChaosDAO here.

20

Haha, this is hilarious. So every other DV applicant is posting their application here on the Polkadot Forum, yet ChaosDAO decided to submit it privately to the W3F.

FYI, on the application guidelines on Medium it says the following:

In addition to your addresses, you must submit a publicly accessible declaration of your Polkadot “political philosophy” or agenda. This should ideally be posted on the Polkadot Forum but can also be hosted on other platforms, such as Github or your personal website, as long as it remains public.

Yet instead of positing your application in public and make yourself subject to scrutiny by the community, you decide to post your application to the foundation in secret. Exactly what I would expect from the ChaosDAO cabal. Thank you for proofing my point :face_with_tears_of_joy: