OpenGov Report - Year In Review
We’re excited to announce the release of a new report produced by the Parity Data Team. This report aims to bring forward many governance-related metrics and data that were previously unavailable or fragmented in the ecosystem. Considering the critical role OpenGov plays within the Polkadot ecosystem, we chose to focus this report on various aspects of network activity, including treasury spending, the Fellowship, voting behavior, bounties, the Decentralized Voices program, and other key areas of decentralized governance.
The report was created to shed light on how different governance mechanisms are functioning, and to provide the community with a clear, data-driven view of what’s happening under the hood of Polkadot’s governance.
What’s Inside
This condensed version of the report highlights several key areas of Polkadot’s governance, including:
- Detailed breakdown of individual referendums
- Voting behavior and participation trends
- Overview of the Polkadot Fellowship
- The Decentralized Voices program and how it has influenced referendum outcomes.
- Insights into the Bounties system, such as the top beneficiaries and distribution of funds.
- Treasury spending trends across various categories.
These insights, alongside a variety of visualized metrics, give a clearer picture of the governance landscape since OpenGov launched. The report covers data up until September 30th, 2024.
Access the Full Report
The slideshow version posted here is a condensed summary, but for those looking to dive deeper, you can access the full report on https://data.parity.io with all its charts, data points, and more detailed analysis, including the comparison table of different governance system of other blockchain networks, by heading to our new website.
For readers who would like more context and depth to go with the charts, we will be posting a long-form analysis below to accompany this summary.
You can also find the slideshow under this link or embedded below:
In-Depth Analysis: Polkadot OpenGov Year In Review
Governance
A referendum is a process where the community proposes or votes on proposed changes or actions to the network. These span from technical upgrades, spending proposals from the treasury, to governance decisions.
As of September 30th 2024, there have been 1,194 referendums that have been initiated by the community, averaging ~2.5 new referendums per day since the start of OpenGov. The highest number of referendums initiated in a single day was 12, which occurred on August 12th 2024.
Based on their origin, approximately 81% of all referendums are on tracks that can request funds from the treasury.
Displayed on the chart below are the 30 referendums with the highest voting power, meaning the total votes cast factoring in conviction. The referendum with the highest voting power is referendum 714 — "Incentivize Interlay iBTC capacity as Polkadot common good” — with a tally of 225 million votes in DOT and 305 distinct addresses participating. However, the most contentious might have been referendums 1065 and 684 — two of the Chainalysis proposals — which ranked second with ~ 222 million votes in DOT from 498 distinct addresses, and third with 186 million votes in DOT from 530 distinct addresses, respectively. Referendums 890 and 53 were both approved with 99% support, as they were technical proposals that the community overwhelmingly agreed upon.
Also displayed on the chart is the conviction multiplier, which indicates how much the voting power in a referendum has been amplified or reduced based on voters’ willingness to lock their tokens in exchange for increased vote weight.
The data on the chart below highlights a trend in submission errors, which suggests potential UX issues. While some months exhibit low erroneous submissions, there are months that indicate that users could be facing challenges during the submission process. Faced with a wrong submission, users will likely need to resubmit a new proposal, pay new submission deposits, and wait for the previous submission to be voted down so that the decision deposit is refunded. The community also spends time reviewing and voting down erroneous proposals.
This chart shows the daily amount of DOT that is locked through conviction voting. There is a natural sharp increase in the weeks after the launch of OpenGov, with a steady rise continuing until February 1st, 2024, when a drop occurs as ~64 million DOT becomes unlocked. Following this event, the amount of DOT locked remains relatively constant, showing only slight fluctuations. It’s important to note that multiple locks can apply to the same address without stacking on top of each other; for instance, if you are staking 100 DOT, you can also use those same 100 DOT to vote, so it is highly likely that much of the DOT locked through conviction voting is also being staked.
Fellowship
The Polkadot Technical Fellowship is a group of technical experts within the Polkadot ecosystem, operating on chain through the Polkadot Collectives system chain and off-chain through the Polkadot Fellows repository. Their collective opinion influences key technical decisions, and they have their own governance structure that empowers them to whitelist certain referendums, enabling them to undergo shorter Lead-in, Confirmation, and Enactment periods, as well as manage memberships. You can read the Fellowship manifesto here and follow their work here.
As of September 30th 2024, the Fellowship has held 214 referendums, with an approval rate of 91%. Since this data first became available on the Collectives chain on May 30th 2023, membership has more than doubled, growing from 47 members to 96, although currently 21 are candidates (rank 0).
Members of the Fellowship receive compensation for their contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem. To monitor these payments, we can track the balances of the addresses involved in processing Fellowship salaries. According to an approved OpenGov proposal, DOT holders voted to allocate 469,000 DOT to pay for these salaries. This amount was transferred to the Relay Chain’s sovereign account on Hydration, and that address will be converting DOT to 250 USDT every 180 blocks and then transfer 5,000 USDT at a time to an AssetHub address.
In addition to receiving salaries, the Polkadot Fellowship now operates with its own dedicated sub-treasury. Funded through this approved OpenGov proposal, this sub-treasury allows the Fellowship to independently manage and allocate funds for more technical proposals. The address managing these funds is monitored to ensure transparency in how these resources are used.
Decentralized Voices
The Web3 Foundation’s Decentralized Voices program aims to boost participation in Polkadot and Kusama governance by delegating significant voting power to active community members. This initiative helps decentralize decision-making by empowering individuals who are passionate about governance but might lack substantial token holdings. The program delegates voting power to selected participants every three months, with the delegates expected to engage in on-chain voting, publicly explain their decisions, and maintain transparency.
For this post, we’ll be focusing on the second cohort of delegates, but you can find charts related to the first cohort on our website. For this analysis, we are only considering Decentralized Voices (DV) votes on referendums that have already finished. The referendum participation breakdown below shows only seven origins because these were the ones delegated to the DVs by the Web3 Foundation. Votes by DV addresses on referendums from other origins are not included in this analysis.
One of the most interesting questions surrounding this program is the extent of its impact on referendum outcomes. As shown on the chart below, DV delegates have directly influenced the outcome of nearly 10% of the finished referendums they participated in. Each of the 10 DV delegates in this cohort has been delegated 4.2 million DOT (factoring in conviction), which is a substantial amount. However, this influence would be less significant if overall participation in OpenGov by DOT holders was higher. The total issuance of the network is currently around 1.4 billion DOT, much of which can be used in voting and even amplified through the use of conviction. The fact that DV delegates often vote differently on the same referendums suggests that if the total amount delegated was held by a single voting address, the percentage of referendums impacted would be even higher.
Looking at each DVs participation rate, ChaosDAO and Saxemberg stand out with very high participation rates of ~99% and ~93% respectively, showing a great commitment to the governance process. Notably, these two DV delegates had also been part of the first cohort of the program.
In the chart below, we can see the percentage of referendums that were voted on but not commented on Polkassembly or Subsquare, in order to gauge how well each DV communicates the reasoning behind their votes. The data reveals different engagement levels across delegates. OneBlocks shows a high rate of voting followed by comments with ~78%, though they participate in fewer referendums, only ~29%. In contrast, more active voters like ChaosDAO have higher voting counts but provide relatively fewer explanations, commenting on 18%. It’s important to note that this analysis takes into consideration comments cast by DVs on Polkassembly and Subsquare as main governance channels, but some active DVs like Saxemberg, Lucky Fridays, Mexican Collective, and OneBlock utilise Twitter or open TG groups in order to provide rationale behind their votes.
At the time of writing, the third round of the DV program was announced and open to new candidates, introducing some significant changes to the program.
Bounties
Bounties, also known as parent bounties, are a system within the Polkadot blockchain that allows proposers to request treasury funds through an OpenGov referendum. Once approved, these funds are managed by a curator, typically a multisig account with multiple signatories, to support various projects over time within a specific scope. This method saves time and provides flexibility by eliminating the need for individual projects to submit and obtain approval from DOT holders for each proposal. While this provides greater flexibility and efficiency, it also centralizes authority, granting significant decision-making power to the bounty curators. The smaller tasks funded directly from the parent bounty are referred to as child bounties.
In the Bounty Tracker table in our website, three bounties stand out for their total allocations of DOT: Bounty 10 (Polkadot Pioneers Bounty), Bounty 17 (Community Events Bounty), and Bounty 33 (Marketing Bounty). The Polkadot Pioneers Bounty, allocated nearly 1 million DOT in February 2022, has only distributed about ~216,000 DOT to date. The Community Events Bounty initially received 1 million DOT in August 2022, was topped up with another 1 million DOT in June 2024, and has paid out just over 1 million DOT so far. The Marketing Bounty started with an allocation of 90,000 DOT in February 2024, has since been topped up four times to a total of 1.35 million DOT, and has paid out approximately 1.406 million DOT.
We can see below that only six bounties have received refills, with the Marketing Bounty standing out as the most frequently topped-up and holding the highest total amount overall.
In the Parent Bounty Stats table on our website, we examine several statistics related to parent and child bounties. There is a significant disparity across the bounties for some of these metrics, which should be interpreted carefully. Some interesting observations include:
- Despite having a high number of child bounties (585), the average amount paid per child bounty for the Anti-Scam Bounty is ~207 DOT, likely to indicate more granular tasks. This is similar to System Parachains Collator Bounty which has 410 child bounties claimed with an average of ~39 DOT
- The Marketing Bounty has the highest average amount paid per child bounty at around ~33,847 DOT, followed by the Polkadot Pioneers Bounty at ~24,071 DOT
- The Marketing Bounty also recorded the highest single payout to a child bounty at 185,842 DOT
In this Parent Bounties Multisig Curators table we can browse the curator addresses associated with each parent bounty. These addresses are generally multisigs that consist of several signatories, and it is these signatory addresses that we are considering as the individuals or entities responsible for managing the bounties. The chart below shows the number of curators for each parent bounty who have set their identities on-chain versus those who have not. Notably, the AMI Bounty Program (ID 46) had only one curator address with an on-chain identity at the time of writing.
Regarding child bounty beneficiaries, we can see below the number of addresses for each parent bounty who have set their identities on chain compared to those who have not.
Looking at the chart below, the curator claim percentage represents how much of the total amount claimed so far has been received by the curators. The Games Bounty and BD Bounty stand out with a curator claim percentage of 100%, but this is not overly concerning as so far only one child bounty has been claimed in each case. In contrast, other bounties like SPANISH BOUNTY V2 (26.59% claimed by curators across 228 child bounties) and Meetups Bounty (17.36% claimed by curators across 16 child bounties) have more child bounties claimed, allowing for better analysis. We can use the curator claim percentage to compare it with the percentage allocated for curator fees and work, outlined in the original proposals, ensuring that the amount claimed aligns with what was initially proposed and that there are no significant deviations. The chart below is available in table format on our website, where additional fields provide further nuance and depth to the analysis.
Examining the top 10 beneficiaries by amount claimed, we can see that the top 2 addresses have received their funds from the Marketing Bounty.
The sunburst chart below shows the distribution of parent bounties (inner rings) and their corresponding child bounties (outer rings). While some parent bounties, like the Marketing Bounty (ID 33) in red, have claimed substantial funds, they feature relatively few child bounties. The large size of the outer red segments indicates that a small number of child bounties have received significant payouts. In contrast, the Events Community Bounty (ID 17) in purple shows a much larger number of child bounties, as indicated by the numerous outer segments, meaning it has distributed its funds across a wider range of smaller tasks and projects.
Treasury
The Polkadot Treasury now holds a considerable amount of assets across different chains. The chart below shows the monthly balances of the treasury across the Hydration chain, Polkadot AssetHub, and the relay chain, with the assets being composed of DOT, USDT, and USDC. The treasury also holds memecoin tokens like DED and STINK, though they are outside the scope of this report. The DED allocation is significant, valued at around 2.8M USD.
Below are the addresses where these funds are being held
- Polkadot relay chain treasury
- Polkadot relay chain treasury on AssetHub
- 5M DOT transferred from relay chain to AssetHub, enacted through referendum 741
- Hydration
- Technical Fellowship sub-treasury on AssetHub
- Enacted through referendum 832
In the chart below we can see the treasury’s monthly spending, which excludes tokens burnt at the end of each spend period. Since August 2020, spending has increased gradually with occasional spikes. However, with the launch of OpenGov in June 2023, spending saw a marked increase, mainly due to the new system allowing all DOT holders to participate in voting on treasury proposals, replacing the council-based decision-making of Gov1. Its parallelized structure, enabling multiple referendums to be active and voted on simultaneously, has contributed to the rise in spending activity.
In May 2024, the treasury address on AssetHub saw its first spending activity with a transfer of 69 USDT, enacted through referendum 756. This referendum was a test of the new treasury.spend
extrinsic, allowing for the spending of DOT and other assets from the treasury address on AssetHub.
In August 2024 we observed the first outflows from the Fellowship sub-treasury, totaling approximately 92k USD. This marks the beginning of spending from the highly anticipated sub-treasury, signaling progress in the governance process. All Fellowship sub-treasury proposals can be viewed here.
Spending levels peaked in mid-2024, but have since decreased.
The charts below present a yearly comparison of treasury spending between 2023 and 2024 YTD. The charts below shows how funds have been allocated across various categories on a yearly view, comparing treasury spending between 2023 and 2024 YTD. The classification was performed by an AI algorithm that categorised each treasury proposal.
- Outreach spending rose from 7.49M USD in 2023 to 54.6M USD in 2024 YTD.
- Development spending increased from 10.77M USD to 24.79M USD, but its relative share dropped from 40% to 20%.
- Operations spending grew from 2.46M USD to 7.87M USD.
- Talent & Education spending doubled, going from 3.64M USD to 7.71M USD.
- Economy spending experienced the largest relative jump, rising from 336k USD to 17.24M USD.
- Research spending increased from 1.46M USD to 6.92M USD.
Lastly we can look at the whole picture with the netflows chart below, which displays both treasury inflows and outflows. We have already looked at most of the outflows when talking about spending, but we excluded the burnt tokens at the end of each spend period, as it is an inbuilt feature to reduce the supply of the treasury and incentivize the community to use treasury funds effectively.
On the inflows side, we can see a spike in transaction fees in December 2023, which was driven by the Ordinals activity on the network, which resulted in millions more daily transactions and consequently more transaction fees being paid.
As for inflation going to the treasury, these inflows have been declining since March 2024 due to the rising staking rate. As the actual staking rate approaches the ideal staking rate, a larger portion of inflation is directed to stakers, leaving less for the treasury.
Conclusion
The report shows that OpenGov has become a pillar of decentralized governance on Polkadot, enabling DOT holders to participate in key decisions affecting the network. Through mechanisms like binding referendums and bounties, Polkadot has successfully distributed decision-making power across a broader range of stakeholders. The Fellowship and Decentralized Voices programs have shown promise in decentralizing technical and governance expertise but require ongoing oversight to ensure transparency and efficiency. While community engagement has been steady, challenges remain such as fluctuating voter participation, concentrated influence in areas like the bounty system, and maintaining long-term engagement of community members.
Next Steps and Acknowledgements
The full report is available on our website, where you can dive into all the detailed charts, insights, and data points, and you can read the condensed version in slideshow format, which offers a more visual summary of the key takeaways. It is currently static on our website but we’ll be working to transition into a monthly updating report. We’re always open to suggestions for new charts and metrics, so feel free to reach out to the Parity Data Team with any ideas or feedback!
Special thanks to Polkassembly, Subsquare, and Alice und Bob for providing us with essential data for some of the analyses, and to Shawn Tabrizi for his detailed feedback on the report prior to its publication.
Data Collection
The data presented in this report was gathered through a combination of sources:
- DotLake: Block data was extracted and processed using DotLake, a data lake built and maintained by Parity’s data team.
- Storage Functions: Additional data was collected from the blockchain through on-chain storage functions.
- Polkassembly and Subsquare APIs: To complement the on-chain data, we used APIs from Polkassembly and Subsquare for OpenGov comments on their platforms
If you have any questions surrounding the data sources and methodologies used in this report, please feel free to contact our team for clarification.