Introducing a new JAM Token?

Ecosystem
45

Are you not the majority shareholder of both of these companies? Are you also no longer at the top of the Parity org chart?

1 Like
47

Thank you Gavin for your response and for finding these clear words - this is exactly what we needed to quell any undue speculation on this topic, and the reason why I wrote this forum post in the first place.

3 Likes
48

Edit post : The scam is complex; I had to think a bit more.

Mr. Wood, are you a scammer on the same level as the Terra Luna CEO? They boldly claim that JAM can be copied. That’s false — it is technically very complex even though it’s open source. Only a betrayal by the original developers could lead to a copy, and I’ll come back to that below.—shame on the entire Polkadot ecosystem for tolerating this. They show no concern for the consequences and outright deny any funding from DOT.

“The JAM protocol has been in development for over two years. Its specification, the Graypaper, was written and maintained almost exclusively by me, and at no point was it funded by the Polkadot treasury” It is factually true but morally wrong, as I will explain below

“I don’t consider it sensible for Parity and the Web3 Foundation to launch such a token though I’ll let those organisations’ leaderships speak for themselves.” This simple sentence justifies everything I am about to say.
The principal shareholder of Parity Technologies is Gavin Wood, who took on this role after the departure of the initial co-founders and retains the majority of the company’s shares (parity.io).

The Web3 Foundation, on the other hand, is a non-profit organization (a foundation) and does not have shareholders in the traditional sense. It is governed by a board of directors, with Dr. Gavin Wood as its founder and president.

This is an embarrassment and a slap in the face to everyone. And now you’re conditionally justifying a potential launch of the JAM token if the leadership of Parity and Web3 were to decide so. But Mr. Wood, as clearly stated earlier in my reasoning, you are the majority shareholder of Parity, you control the decision, and you’re also the president of the Foundation. You hold the levers of influence — so ultimately, it is you who decides.

Now you’re justifying a possible launch of a JAM token if Parity and Web3 (in other words, you) agree on it. You’re relying on the fact that JAM was apparently not funded by the treasury, which might make this choice acceptable, since JAM would be considered “free.”
But Mr. Wood — where did the 10 million DOT granted for development come from? Is that magic money, or the result of the hard work of DOT investors, diluted for the past five years?

****“It is strictly and minimally specified and has no single reference implementation or single financial interest behind it which might compromise its neutrality.”**Neutral? I don’t understand, Mr. Wood — are the members of the Web3 Foundation elected through any governance process? Aren’t the developers selected for JAM chosen by the Web3 Foundation, and therefore indirectly by you?

Isn’t it you, wearing your triple hat — majority shareholder of Parity, president of the Web3 Foundation, and founder of Polkadot — who places your own contacts?

How can you claim that the financial health of the Web3 Foundation is good, as you seem to suggest?

Considering that all Web3 projects, like ATOM and DOT, have lost 90% of their value, by what financial magic have you achieved this “miracle”? Please explain.

Could it simply be thanks to your ICO at 20 cents and your DOT sales in 2017 — just before the massive token dilution — that you ensured this “good health”?"

What a scheme of dilution and circumvention!
All the money collected during the ICO was used as a pretext to establish an inflation mechanism on the token. Instead of redistributing these DOT emissions to strengthen the ecosystem, the Web3 Foundation inflated its own stock of DOT through this inflation, then learned how to massively sell these tokens to secretly fund JAM, further diluting the value of every held DOT.

The end goal?
To make JAM a side tool while preparing for the launch of a future private token.

1. Governance Delegation via Referendum #682 to Hide the Funding

To pretend that the Treasury “doesn’t fund” JAM, governance was first delegated to a small circle (Web3 Foundation and Gavin Wood’s close associates) through Referendum #682.

Presented as a “democratization” measure, this vote in reality allowed a few insiders to take control of the on-chain Treasury without raising suspicion.

Thanks to this delegation, decisions about fund allocation (notably the 10M DOT for JAM) were never subjected to real community debate but handled by accounts connected to the Web3 Foundation.

Result: the community believed JAM was self-funded or supported by external donations, while in reality, the Treasury—and therefore your DOT—was being used behind the scenes.

2. The ICO and Inflation Manipulated by the Web3 Foundation

  • Initial fundraising: The Web3 Foundation sold DOT at a discounted price during the ICO, raising private capital to launch Polkadot.
  • “Justified” inflation: To fund development and incentivize validators, a 10%–15% annual inflation rate was introduced. In theory, these new DOTs should have secured the network and rewarded participation.
  • Actual diversion: Instead of redistributing these DOTs across the ecosystem, the Web3 Foundation first hoarded them into its own wallets. Then, in phases, they sold them to convert DOT into fiat (USDC, USD, etc.). These funds were redirected to secretly finance JAM, up to 10 million DOT, with no transparency or public accounting.

Direct consequence: This process not only inflated the total DOT supply (dilution) but also created continuous downward pressure on the token’s value—to the benefit of the Web3 Foundation.

3. Staking Rewards: A Continuous DOT Stream to JAM

  • Staking = new DOT emissions: Each year, a portion of inflation is distributed to validators and holders staking their DOT.
  • Treasury accumulation: Instead of letting staking rewards circulate freely, the Web3 Foundation captured a large portion of these DOTs (via linked accounts or kickbacks) and funneled them into the on-chain Treasury.
  • Redirected to JAM: Through Referendum #682, a substantial amount of these DOTs was rerouted to the “JAM Implementer’s Prize.” In concrete terms, your staking rewards were used to distribute over 10 million DOT to teams building JAM clients—diluting DOT’s value to fund a project controlled by Gavin Wood (WEB3, PArity) and his inner circle. One might even think this is the narrative you’re promoting to institutions, given the negative capital inflows into the DOT token. Hold on, friends — JAM is coming, and you have a reserved spot in the ICO.

Impact on DOT: This strategy worsened the dilution. Every DOT absorbed by JAM and sold by the Web3 Foundation increased the circulating supply, while the declining price penalized all holders.

4. Turning JAM into a “Side Tool” to Launch a Private Token

  • Official positioning: JAM is presented as a “module” designed to improve interoperability and scalability on Polkadot
  • Actual positioning: JAM developers, paid in DOT sourced from inflation and staking, built a full-fledged infrastructure. JAM token.A simple side tool.He was not funded by the Treasury as Wood says — I’m not making this up, it’s written three lines above. So even if I’m against it, they can create the token, no problem. Are you kidding us?

Impact on the community: Many external observers and token holders believed they were innocently funding a component for improvement. In truth, they funded most of JAM’s infrastructure, which will serve as the base for a private, for-profit token—with zero return for them.

5. The Secret Plan to Launch a Private Token: The JAM Exit Strategy

Phase 1: Build JAM discreetly

  • Use 10M DOT to pay development teams, audits, test infrastructure, and draft the Graypaper.
  • Lock 75% of the allocated DOT for two years, boosting implementers’ vote conviction and solidifying governance control.

Phase 2: Launch the JAM private token

  • Once JAM reaches maturity within the ecosystem, the Web3 Foundation (or a related group) will launch a private JAM token for investors.
  • This new token, marketed as JAM’s native economy, will be released via a presale or IDO. Yet all development costs will have already been covered by your diluted DOT.
  • The funds raised through this JAM token will finance future developments and allow the Web3 Foundation / Parity ( Wood CEO,WOOD president) to buy back DOT to stabilize the price—completing a shady financial loop.

Conclusion: A Perverse Scheme at the Expense of DOT Holders

  • ICO & Inflation Phase: The Web3 Foundation justified inflation as necessary for growth while stockpiling and dumping DOT.
  • Staking Phase: Your staking rewards, born from that inflation, were captured and rerouted to JAM via Referendum #682, further diluting the token’s value.
  • Private Token Phase: After funding JAM with your DOT, they will present you with a paid JAM token built on infrastructure you already financed—an unprecedented form of value extraction.

DOT Holders and DAOs:

  • It’s urgent to legally and publicly contest the use of inflation and staking rewards to fund a private project.
  • Demand an independent audit on the DOT flows from the ICO, inflation, and staking rewards.
  • Call for an immediate freeze of JAM-related allocations until these flows are clarified and externally verified.

Today, DOT has become what it was never meant to be: a dilution tool to fund

The true project of Gavin Wood — JAM.
Honestly, you’re worse than the guy who ran Terra Luna. At least he believed his own nonsense.
JAM is Polkadot’s dirty business!
Your financial tricks won’t work. We will stay vigilant and united to defend the integrity of our ecosystem: transparency, decentralization, and the community first—always.

JAM belongs exclusively to the Polkadot ecosystem. If you – or some of your insider contacts – think you can hijack its open-source code to make it look like it can be easily copied, "JAM protocol extensively around the world and it is possible to understand enough to make a full implementation of JAM from one main paper, its references and a handful of published technical conventions." . Even as open source, it is extremely difficult for any outside developer to faithfully reproduce JAM without being part of the original team.

And if, in reality, it turns out that the same developers are creating a copy to launch a new “JAM” token, believe me – the truth will come out. And when it does, you’ll be seen as the next Terra Luna – having betrayed the trust of Polkadot.

I sincerely hope you will respond to this message, Mr. Wood. This time, I am asking you to clearly and precisely explain your vision, in a way that leaves no room for doubt or interpretations like mine.

If you are unable to express yourself clearly, and your words are frequently misunderstood, then perhaps public communication is not your strength. In that case, I would urge you to stop speaking on behalf of the ecosystem. Don’t try to become the “Musk” of Polkadot — just like with SpaceX, people might seek to distance you from the project in order to protect its future.

I am issuing a call to the various DAOs, based on the 17th founding principle of JAM Decentralized JAM, to vote or propose a governance vote titled Wish for Change on Polkadot.
This wish :, I call for a ban on the creation of any JAM token — or any token under a different name using JAM technology — that does not economically benefit the Polkadot ecosystem.
Any launch of a JAM-based token, or any token leveraging JAM technology under a different name, must be submitted to Polkadot governance, which will be responsible for evaluating and validating the project’s economic relevance to the Polkadot ecosystem.

1 Like
49

Can you link to this referendum or treasury spend on Subsquare or Polkassembly? I can’t seem to find it, and I’ve been under the impression that the W3F is privately funding the Prize.

1 Like
50

W3F is indeed funding the prize pool per the JAM Rules

1 Like
52

I strongly oppose the issuance of new tokens or rebranding for the following reasons:
(1) The development of the JAM protocol is funded by DOT community, and the issuance of new tokens will harm DOT holders. Wouldn’t it be foolish to use your own money to fund/cultivate competitors and destroy yourself?
(2) We have done a lot of work in marketing DOT, and issuing new coins or rebranding will make all our efforts go to waste
(3) DOT has already submitted an ETF application, and issuing new coins or rebranding will make all our efforts go to waste. Although the description of DOT in the ETF is outdated, it is always easier to modify the description than to resubmit a new application.

53

Go check edit post

54

He’s referring to Polkadot Referendum 682 - Polkassembly - Referendum #682 - which was a system.remark Referendum passed with >99.9% DOT in favor (31.3 million DOT / 267 accounts in favor, 720 DOT / 4 accounts against).

1 Like
55

I’m sorry, but this clarification only makes things worse.

Polkadot may be labeled “democratic,” but in reality, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a few. This happens both because a small number of actors control a large portion of DOT and because most token holders simply don’t participate in governance.

Why was JAM developed by over 40 different teams funded by Polkadot’s treasury without any legal obligation or accountability to the ecosystem? It’s one thing if outside projects choose to use JAM since it’s open source, but when we’re the ones funding it, this isn’t decentralized innovation — it’s a failure of leadership and oversight.

And if legal agreements aren’t the preferred path, why not structure incentives differently? Treasury funds could have been used to offer teams an initial grant followed by multi-year DOT-based retention packages, with ongoing funding subject to governance approval. That would ensure alignment with Polkadot’s long-term interests while maintaining decentralization and community oversight.

Let’s also stop pretending that decision-making is entirely community-driven. Gavin, whether you acknowledge it or not, you hold significant influence over the direction of the project. Denying that influence only damages credibility.

Yes, Polkadot hosts major rollups like Mythos, but it’s fair to ask: are they here for Polkadot’s unique advantages, or because finality costs them next to nothing?

Polkadot has been around for over five years. It’s time to move on from subsidizing “design partners” and start building a sustainable, revenue-generating ecosystem.

At this point, we need to stop treating Polkadot as a philanthropic mission for Web3 idealists and recognize it for what it is — a business struggling under questionable leadership and misaligned incentives.

I’m selling my DOT. I hope others who see the same issues will consider doing the same.

2 Likes
56

While I disagree with your assessments and conclusions, I appreciate the fact that you and many others feel disenfranchised with the current state of Polkadot and any financial rewards you feel to have missed out on. It can be mentally and emotionally taxing to be sure of your convictions and watching many others who appear to work against your aims.

We can move this discussion to DMs or another public space, as I think the topic has sufficiently drifted from the original theme. But based on the points you’ve outlined, I’m curious of a few of your thoughts as to:

What do you see is the purpose, or the problem which Blockchain-based technologies solve?

What do you believe is the input and output product of Polkadot?

What are the key performance indicators for a ‘successful’ Blockchain system like polkadot?

What are the most important uses for the future of Blockchain systems?

To what other competition are you comparing Polkadot?

Answering some of these questions may help me and others to better understand your core values and how there might be miscommunication or misalignment in community or leadership direction.

57

Again, please show where Polkadot Treasury funded these things you are claiming. As discussed above, funding is from the Web3 Foundation, not Treasury.

60

I invite you to review my full critique of OpenGov : Polkassembly - Manifesto for the Recovery of Polkadot Lucid governance. A credible economic model. A community taking back control. #3236
While it contains a few inaccuracies, they highlight two key issues: first, the lack of clear communication; and second, the fact that even with my daily deep dives into Polkadot and my solid academic backgroundit remains extraordinarily difficult to cross-reference information and discern the truth about what has been achieved and what still lies ahead.
I’m just an individual passionate about Polkadot. I find the technology remarkable, and I genuinely don’t understand how such severe economic mistakes can be made nor why it takes so long to recognize and fix them.

disconnected idealism is a real obstacle to progress. It is a stance where some actors, trapped in a utopian vision, refuse to consider reality as it is, with its constraints, limits, and unforeseen challenges. This attitude, though motivated by noble intentions, can paradoxically slow down or even block an

Idealism, tempered by a good understanding of the field, is a powerful driving force. It encourages imagining a better world, daring to innovate, and questioning the status quo. But as soon as it drifts away from pragmatism, it becomes a hindrance. Refusing to acknowledge real difficulties or minimizing technical or human challenges closes the door to effective solutions

For an ecosystem to evolve, a delicate balance must be found between ambitious vision and taking realities into account. It is by accepting compromises and confronting ideas with practice that we can build a sustainable future. Disconnected idealism, if not corrected, hinders this essential dy

Recognizing this limitation is not giving up but a necessary step to move forward. By integrating dreams and reality, we can open true paths for improvement and chart the course of progress.

I don’t want to see the project collapse or be absorbed, but I seriously doubt we’ll survive the next bear run. Our user base is already fragile; in the event of a mass exodus, we’d lack the treasury to sustain ourselves, and our developers would migrate to ecosystems offering better incentives.Not quite, in reality. With the new treasury model tied to fixed inflation, the treasury can never truly run out — it will continue to exist as long as DOT hasn’t reached zero. But DOT is asymptotically approaching zero — it tends toward it without ever actually reaching it.Polkadot made another fundamental economic mistake by relying almost exclusively on yield-seeking investors, offering high APYs at the expense of speculative investors. When these two groups are not balanced, the system becomes vulnerable and risks collapsing.

By prioritizing high yields, Polkadot attracted a large number of long-term holders seeking stable passive income but neglected the speculative traders who provide market liquidity and movement. This imbalance weakens market depth and its ability to absorb shocks.

In the long run, such a disparity can lead to widespread loss of confidence, massive sell-offs, and a rapid decline in the asset’s value.

This model creates an illusion of sustainability while structurally increasing downward pressure on an already weak market. Since it relies on perpetual inflation — and therefore continuous dilution — it steadily erodes the value of the asset.

Investors see all of this. They anticipate, model, and prepare for every possible scenario. They don’t just follow trends; they assess risks, adapt their strategies, and avoid systems that appear toxic or economically unsound in the long run.

In my view, replacing the previous model was a serious economic mistake. In the short term, it may have helped balance the books. But in the long term, it accelerates depreciation, fuels disengagement, and undermines confidence in the entire system. We are in the middle of a bull run this is the perfect time to implement structural changes, leverage the market’s momentum, and capitalize on our visibility to attract both users and talent.

Retail investors are essential. Many of us share this perspective don’t ignore us behind the veil of utopian ideology. .Continuous DOT dilution is steadily eroding our portfolios, and the absence of any coherent economic strategy poses a grave risk to every investor in the project. In contrast, OpenAI has adopted a philanthropic (albeit initially unprofitable) model: it builds a high-performance, free platform without tapping into the capital of small holders, only later introducing monetization. Polkadot, by contrast, relies on perpetual inflation of small holders’ stakes to fund an abstract vision, never establishing a sustainable long-term economic model. What’s worse still is that there appears to be no genuine will at Polkadot’s core to change course and actually create lasting value—arguably the most damning failure of all. Remember, markets live on confidence: macroeconomic “data” are often nothing more than convenient fiction, yet as long as participants believe in them, the system functions. Strip away that belief, and even the best-designed economy collapses. Polkadot’s persistent neglect of this fundamental truth leaves its entire model teetering on a bluffAfter four years of consistently disastrous economic metrics (see the financial data in my critique), unchecked DOT inflation remains the norm. It’s naïve to treat Polkadot as a public good generously gifted by its founder—Gavin Wood, architect of both the Polkadot and Ethereum ICOs—when in reality he’s using our capital to endlessly bankroll his dream without delivering a solid economic framework. This feels profoundly disingenuous.

What’s even more astonishing is how simple the fixes could be: we already have a “flashgip” in development—JAM—that could easily attract investors and speculators. Yet for a man as brilliant as Mr. Wood to publicly claim that this mechanism can be instantly copied borders on dishonesty or deep selfishness. No institutional investor will commit a penny to a technology that offers no return on investment and lacks basic economic viability. Or simply hold a referendum to mandate the use of the DOT token across the various parachains. This would have allowed, much like OpenAI, to build trust and create value. Once users were on board, we could have changed the model and removed this requirement. Progress needs to be made step by step, building block by block. Clinging to hopes of a DOT ETF under current conditions is nothing more than a comforting chimera.

We can love Web3 and decentralization, but we must remain clear-eyed about the realities of human society and economic systems. OpenGov led by a minority, as widely acknowledged across Reddit and Polkadot forums may be conceptually interesting, offering indirect centralization and potentially faster decision-making. But clearly, the decisions made so far have not been effective. If they had been, we wouldn’t be in this situation, and I wouldn’t be here trying to keep the ship afloat.

Markets are built on trust. The success of a project depends on its ability to earn that trust and that success, in turn, is what attracts users and institutional investors.

Everything else starts to resemble research-based companies what we commonly call “biotechs” in the stock market that sell a dream (like restoring sight to the blind) without ever proving a sustainable economic model. These companies typically end up diluting their equity through instruments like convertible notes or toxic financings, only to be acquired cheaply by competitors after failing to gain meaningful traction.

If this is Polkadot’s actual vision, then it should be stated honestly to investors. But let’s be clear: if you say that out loud, Polkadot is dead. That leaves only one credible path forward show, now, that you want to make this project a real success. That means enacting clear, tangible, visible economic changes, and pivoting to a strategy grounded in real-world adoption not in passive hope for maturity or an eventual buyout by friendly insiders ( New JAM Token). Bitcoin built its adoption primarily through the price appreciation of its token. Thanks to a snowball effect, this price growth established it as a store of value—far more than through its technological features. Its success was driven by a built-in scarcity mechanism: a hard cap of 21 million tokens, which fueled exponential price increases as demand rose. This dynamic sent a powerful signal of confidence to investors, long before the public fully understood or appreciated the technology behind it.

Polkadot, on the other hand, is attempting the opposite—seeking to impose adoption purely through the robustness of its technology, without creating strong economic incentives. Technically, this could work, but only under one condition: that the innovation is protected and that the ecosystem recognizes and leverages its intellectual property. As it stands, this is not the case. As Mr. Wood himself has stated, the system can be copied as soon as tomorrow. Without a strategy to make the model economically non-replicable and attractive to capital, Polkadot will remain overshadowed by less innovative but far more profitable projects.he token price is in free fall, the economic metrics are alarming, and a large portion of retail investors have lost money. This has created a deep atmosphere of distrust — even disgust — leading to an involuntary boycott of the network. There’s a total absence of network effect: little enthusiasm, few users. Without developers galvanized by visionary leadership, it’s a loop of self-sabotage.

And when I talk about developers, I’m not referring to engineers who can simply code a parachain. I’m talking about entrepreneurial minds — Steve Jobs-like profiles — capable of carrying a bold vision, imagining a viral application, and rallying top-tier talent around it. These kinds of visionaries won’t naturally gravitate toward Polkadot in its current state, because they’re not drawn to our financial metrics or the lack of network momentum.

The core issue isn’t UX — it’s the absence of a credible, attractive economic model. This strategic void is what’s preventing Polkadot from achieving mass adoption and from attracting the kind of minds that spark revolutions.

We don’t need disconnected utopians waiting for the wind to shift. We need builders, leaders, and people willing to face market realities and take action. If Polkadot wants to stay in the race, it must demonstrate today that it has a coherent, sustainable vision rooted in solid economics. Otherwise, history will remember us only as a wasted ideal.

In the short run, the market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine; and at time T, it’s just confidence.

2 Likes
61

Come on… and how does the Web3 Foundation get its funding?

Do they even earn anything outside of the treasury?

They received an initial allocation of DOT. This is supposed to be a non-profit foundation, which means they don’t have any real source of income beyond that allocation—aside from possibly some staking rewards.

So at the end of the day, it’s all just DOT. Either from the initial allocation or from staking it.

1 Like