Establishing a Governance-Backed Recovery Group for Inactive or “Dead” Projects

Governance
, , ,
1

Hello fellow travelers👋

I wanted to bring up an idea that’s been on my mind — one that’s both ethical and practical for the long-term health of the Polkadot ecosystem.

:warning: The Problem

As our ecosystem continues to grow and mature, it’s inevitable that some projects will eventually become inactive or “dead.”
Teams may move on, lose funding, or pivot away from their original missions — leaving behind parachains, or dApps that still hold locked assets.

Rather than waiting for this to happen and reacting afterward, we should prepare pre-emptively by establishing a clear, fair, and transparent process to handle such situations responsibly.

This proactive approach would:

  • Prevent loss of funds that could otherwise be returned or redeployed toward active initiatives.

  • Reduce community frustration and the potential for unnecessary drama.

  • Protect Polkadot’s reputation as a transparent and self-regulating ecosystem.

  • Make it easier for governance and the Treasury to track and recover allocated resources when needed.

:light_bulb: The Proposal: A Recovery & Stewardship Group

I suggest creating a governance-backed working group or committee — tentatively called the “Recovery Group” or “Stewardship Collective” — that would be responsible for handling funds from projects that are confirmed inactive, abandoned, or unresponsive over a defined period.

Key Responsibilities:

  • Identify inactive or “dead” projects through transparent criteria (e.g., no commits, updates, or governance interaction for X months).

  • Engage in outreach to the project’s original team to verify the situation.

  • Facilitate the safe return or redistribution of locked funds — whether to the Treasury, individual contributors, or governance-defined destinations.

  • Publish transparent reports so the community can track reclaimed or reallocated assets.

  • Recommend follow-up governance actions, such as de-registering a parachain, deactivating vaults, or adjusting allocations.

:gear: Governance and Oversight

  • The group could operate under governance oversight, similar to other collectives (e.g., Fellowship, Bounties).

  • Membership could consist of trusted ecosystem participants — perhaps from the Fellowship, auditors, Treasury curators, or long-standing parachain teams.

  • Decision-making could remain on-chain and transparent, with clear records of reclaimed funds and outcomes.

:locked_with_key: Why This Matters

Creating a formal recovery process ensures:

  • Ethical fund management and protection for contributors and token holders.

  • Reduced drama and speculation when projects fail or fade out.

  • Improved trust in Polkadot’s governance model and Treasury stewardship.

  • A sustainable, self-regulating ecosystem that holds itself accountable.

This isn’t about punishment — it’s about maturity, transparency, and protecting the integrity of the network.

:brain: Implementation Thoughts

  • Define criteria for inactivity (e.g., no runtime upgrades, commits, or governance proposals for 6–12 months, …).

  • Establish a review process where the Recovery Group evaluates cases before taking action.

  • Funds could be temporarily escrowed until governance decides on redistribution.

  • Could also include a “grace period” where teams can reactivate before final decisions are made.

:speech_balloon: Personal Note

I’m personally not yet deeply familiar with the governance system — so I’m not entirely sure how to move forward if this discussion gains momentum.
If this thread were received overwhelmingly positively, I’d love to understand how to make a formal “Wish for Change” proposal or any other governance motion that could move this idea toward research and experimentation.

:ringed_planet: Goal

Polkadot should remain a trustworthy and responsible ecosystem, where community and Treasury funds are always traceable, recoverable, and ethically managed — even when individual projects fade out.

By creating a Recovery Group, we can ensure that no funds remain permanently lost in inactive projects, and that the network’s integrity remains intact.

2

another idea could be to collect the code of the inactive dapps and websites all in one place, so the community can reuse those.

Example: https://bountymanager.io/ a project which received 175k funding and then did not get finished and abandoned. However, the code here might be useful to do bounty analysis or overviews e.g.

1 Like
3

That’s a really good addition — I completely agree.

Recovering code and development output from inactive projects could be just as valuable as reclaiming unused funds. There’s no reason for good work to disappear simply because a project went inactive.

The Recovery Group (or whatever we end up calling it) could include a “code and resource preservation” process as part of its responsibilities. For example:

  • Collecting open-source repositories from inactive or abandoned projects.

  • Hosting them in a central community-maintained archive — maybe under the Polkadot GitHub organization or an independent repo like polkadot-recovery-lab.

  • Tagging and categorizing projects (e.g. treasury-funded, parachain, dApp, tooling) so developers can easily find reusable code.

  • Potentially rewarding contributors who document or repurpose this code for new projects.

This would prevent waste, foster reuse, and give future builders a solid foundation to build from.

The example of bountymanager.io is a great case — the funds were lost, but the code might still help future bounty dashboards or analysis tools.

So yes, I think this idea could become a dual recovery effort:

  • Financial recovery (returning or redistributing funds), and

  • Code recovery (preserving useful work for future builders).

Both contribute to the same goal — keeping the Polkadot ecosystem transparent, efficient, and self-sustaining. :raising_hands: