Encointer Treasury Proposal: Unclear Value and Questionable Governance

Governance
1

I’m genuinely surprised by this new Encointer treasury proposal. The more I look into it, the less clear its actual usefulness becomes. There’s very little transparency around its real-world impact, and it’s hard to find any solid data on how many active, genuine users it actually has. Without that kind of clarity, it’s difficult to justify why it should continue to hold the status it does within the ecosystem.

At this point, it feels like Encointer should be reconsidered as a system chain altogether. Proposals like this should be held to a much higher standard, especially when they are meant to represent meaningful value or adoption. Right now, it seems to fall short on both fronts.

It’s also hard to ignore the apparent conflict of interest surrounding the voting process. Seeing what looks like some operators running multiple identities as proved here, supporting the proposal raises serious concerns about governance integrity and transparency. Those accounts are apparently linked to Encointer devs or ex-devs and should avoid voting in their proposal. Whether intentional or not, this kind of situation undermines trust in the decision-making process.

e
e783×678 46.6 KB

After all the funding that has gone into Encointer, can we get some clear numbers?

How many real, active users does it actually have today? And how much revenue is it generating on its own, without relying on continued external support?

These seem like basic questions that should be answered transparently before moving forward. Based on that, does it truly make sense for Encointer to continue as a system chain funded by the treasury, or is it time to reconsider its status?

If W3F is serious about driving real, positive change, it should start by setting clearer standards and avoiding the approval of proposals that don’t demonstrate clear value, transparency, or broad community support. Strengthening governance and accountability would be a much more constructive step forward for the ecosystem.

2

I am not sure why you are bringing Web3 Foundation into this, as it is not voting on this Treasury Proposal. As part of our new remit ( https://medium.com/web3foundation/returning-to-its-roots-web3-foundations-next-phase-0fa0c1db23ed ) we are stepping back from much direct intervention in OpenGov.

If you would like more details on the Encointer proposal, probably the best place is to ask on their Referendum discussion which you linked.

3

Maybe because….

After all the funding that has gone into Encointer, can we get some clear numbers?

How many real, active users does it actually have today? And how much revenue is it generating on its own, without relying on continued external support?

4

Lots of teams received funding from W3F grants - over 700. I certainly don’t have information on what all of these teams are doing now.

Neither I nor W3F “introduced Encointer”, I talked about it as a project building on Polkadot in a podcast.

I don’t have answers to any of these questions, but I suggest you ask the team that would - the Encointer team itself - in the post that they specifically put up for people to ask questions on.

5

I’m really worried about Encointer continuing to get treasury funding for a product that almost nobody uses.

The team already had a hiccup shutting down Integritee :skull: , but hey—no problem, let’s just keep throwing money at it. Sounds like a solid plan.

6

Kusama doesn’t have a plan. I’ve been criticizing this for a long time, and W3F still hasn’t issued a statement. Funding African princes and pointless, overpriced development projects that lead nowhere is just the tip of the iceberg.

7

We’d be happy to answer your questions, but please ask them on our referendum thread so everyone can see them. We want to avoid fragmentation of deliberation

8

@Megadot Thank you for making us dig up the numbers: Encointer is as active as Asset Hub Kusama was before the migration I leave it to the reader to compare KAH OPEX to Encointer OPEX