I agree that major versions are primarily useful as communicative devices to signal significant improvements.
I think there is one crucial dynamic at play that speaks for signaling to the broader Web3 community that it is worth taking a closer look at Polkadot again: Sentiment towards Polkadot as a whole
While there is widespread agreement that Polkadot concepts and technology are exceptionally advanced, Polkadot is also seen as overly complex and impractical. It is an enormous task for chain developers to make something out of the substrate that they are given and developer support hasn’t been the best in the past. “End users” that have tried Polkadot (in the worst case through Polkadot.js) had bad experiences (and in the worst case have lost funds because they sent DOT to “their” CEX deposit address on AssetHub for which CEXes might deny support) have decided that Polkadot is not for them.
It is on us to mount a turnaround in sentiment and thus the question is how we can achieve it.
It took 7 years from whitepaper to Polkadot 1.0 (5 years to launch the first parachain on Kusama). But Polkadot 1.0 is only the base for parachains. Now it is the job of the ecosystem to make parachains actually buildable and usable and get the early kinks out of the way. Parachains still miss substantial tooling for development, QA, deployment, ops, and insights. All this tooling is developed as we speak and will be what makes Polkadot actually usable to developers and eventually users.
Our job for signaling to the broader Web3 community when to look at Polkadot again should not only revolve around JAM because the launch of JAM will not have a direct relation to when it will be practically usable for the developer and user. After the launch of JAM, we will “just” have a parachains/corechains service and for the outside observer everything will be the same and nothing will be new. Until we see JAM come into action, we will need CorePlay and other services to come live AND then actual constructs come live AND then become practically developable and usable.
It is thus my opinion that we should find a point in time to signal to the broader Web3 community when we have brought the existing parachain model into a state where it is easy, powerful, and fun to build with parachains and when users will have a UX that is judged as good.
The Web3 Foundation is undertaking an enormous campaign to bring Decentralized Futures teams into operations so that we can rewire agents in the ecosystem in a decentralized (and yet effective) manner. The folks at Parity, at the parachain teams, dapp teams, wallet teams, dashboard teams, etc… have spent a lot of work to improve UX, DevEx, and Marketing.
The situation for us out there is tough, as we try to uphold the best of Polkadot every day but have to fight against tendencies of teams leaving the ecosystems and long-standing community members turning their backs. We all believe that we can make Polkadot a success story and that our efforts will pay off.
But what we need is a rallying cry. Similar to the halving, on which you reflected in the Gray Paper interview. We need an opportunity to show off to the world that Polkadot has become better and that everyone should give it another try.
I believe that we need such a random point in time around which everyone can rally very soon. We need new devs, new attention, new community members, and new investments in the ecosystem soon.
Agile Coretime (+ Async Backing + Elastic Scaling) addresses one of the biggest pain points that the Polkadot 1.0 concept exhibited and also already points to a future of a highly efficient Polkadot. It already can offer a set of unique USPs that no other ecosystem can offer (high economic security + monthly guaranteed blockspace + scale to your needs).
Coretime with a finishing touch of Elastic Scaling is a huge thing and we should celebrate it as such.