Polkadot 3.0 - the JAM upgrade

The Polkadot 2.0 proposal clarified the ecosystem’s direction and improved communication between leadership and the community.

My previous forum post about renaming parachains to rollups also helped in using terminology that can ease the comparison with other ecosystems and technologies. I can see now multiple leaders speaking about rollups and slowly abandoning parachains (cynical rollup or Polkadot rollups).

Now is the time to do the same for the next major evolution of Polkadot: the JAM upgrade. This post aims to make clear that:

  • Polkadot is the brand.

  • JAM is the next iteration of the technology.

  • The Polkadot JAM upgrade will usher in the Polkadot 3.0 era.

  • DOT remains the token.

The community has already expressed reluctance to rebrand DOT to JAM in the Wish for Change referendum 1626. This opens the gates for further discussion of the future direction of Polkadot, and I am confident we can reach a consensus.


Current Situation

Polkadot is a strong brand. However, recent narratives have harmed its perception, especially those associating Polkadot with the word “dead.” The reality is, most people are still just beginning to understand Ethereum, let alone Polkadot. Framing Polkadot as “not dead” sets a negative precedent and plants unhelpful seeds in the minds of new crypto-curious individuals and the broader public. Instead, we must set a positive tone and position Polkadot as a vibrant, innovative, and beloved brand.

Over the past five years, considerable effort (both financial and communal) has gone into making Polkadot highly visible in the crypto space and beyond (Taxi in Berlin, Indy 500, Inter Miami, just to name a few). Continuing to strengthen the brand signals resilience and long-term vision. While decentralizing operations has been challenging, we are entering a phase where the system is starting to function more or less coherently. Polkadot is a resilient ecosystem, and the brand and DOT token should reflect that same resilience. In a space as emotionally volatile as crypto, perception matters, and the good thing is that it changes (very) quickly.


The Porsche Example

All brands and industries experience ups and downs. A great example is Porsche in the late 1990s. Despite developing some of the most technologically advanced cars of the era, like the 993 series with innovations such as twin-turbo engines, AWD, and automatic brake differentials, the company was near bankruptcy. Today, those same cars are valued as modern classics. But back then, Porsche needed a lifeline.

That lifeline came in the form of the 996 Boxster and Cayenne. These were not collector’s cars, but they sold well and saved the company. They enabled Porsche to keep innovating and stay relevant in a market with increasing competition.

I know, the comparison is not fair as Polkadot is blockchain stuff, but I hope the example is testimony that:

  • Even the best technology can struggle without the right positioning.
  • Hard times are temporary and often provide valuable lessons.
  • Long-term success can overshadow past difficulties and even turn them into badges of honor.
  • Porsche is a resilient brand that has survived the test of time, and with it the test of technological progress, people’s perception, generational changes, etc.

I truly believe Polkadot can be a resilient brand, and not only resilient tech.


The JAM Narrative

Another risk to the Polkadot brand has come from how JAM has been introduced, almost as a separate project, disconnected from Polkadot. This approach has caused confusion and concern among both the community and curious newcomers. Rather than splitting the narrative, we need to unify it.

It is becoming clear that a stable, production-ready JAM will not arrive overnight. And the longer this ambiguity continues, the more it affects confidence. Uncertainty and fragmented messaging are the enemies of adoption, innovation, and investment. They discourage newcomers from exploring the ecosystem and stall capital inflows. We need clarity.


Proposal Aims

This proposal seeks to formalize the following:

1. Communication

JAM is a technical upgrade to Polkadot, not a new project. It will replace the Relay Chain and related infrastructure with the JAM Chain, ushering in the Polkadot 3.0 era. While JAM is currently being developed separately for testing and will later support backward compatibility (e.g., for rollup chains), messaging must remain focused on Polkadot.
If Polkadot is considered a decentralized computer, then the JAM upgrade is a CPU replacement: swapping out the current CPU for a more powerful one, allowing for more generality and coherence.

2. Token

There will be no JAM token. DOT remains the network’s utility token and will continue to power Polkadot post-upgrade.

3. Branding

Branding should remain firmly centered on Polkadot. Presenting JAM as a standalone brand has created confusion. JAM is simply the next technological chapter for Polkadot.


Disclaimer

This post is intended for discussion purposes only. It reflects a personal viewpoint and outlines one possible direction for Polkadot as a brand and technological leader. My hope is to encourage serious, thoughtful conversation about where we are and where we are going. The ultimate goal is to align on a shared vision that could later be formalized in a Wish for Change referendum. A decision from the community is ultimate and sets a clear message for leaders and future communication and positioning of Polkadot.

20 Likes

Polkadot 2.0 to JAM is similar to Ethereum 1.0 to Ethereum 2.0 – a really big and important upgrade. Polkadot 1.0 to Polkadot 2.0 in comparison is really a relatively small update, similar to the Ethereum hard forks that happen every year.

Naming JAM upgrade as “Polkadot 3.0” could therefore hinder the public perception and give the impression that this is “just another Polkadot 2.0” (which it isn’t).

In addition, I would really hope to have a way to refer to Polkadot 1.0/2.0 collectively vs. referring to JAM. For example, for the Polkadot Compatibility Hub project, I would want to say the following:

Compatibility Hub provides a coherent design that works natively both on Polkadot 1.0/2.0 and on JAM.

But this is really long-winded.

In Ethereum, we would just say eth1 vs. eth2. But in Polkadot, the name “Polkadot 2.0” is already taken.

6 Likes

Well explained sir. Tagging it Polkadot 3.0 makes it more clear that JAM is an upgrade to the existing Polkadot system. Not a rebrand. Glad that the rebranding proposal didn’t pass. Let’s see how things goes.

1 Like

If I can suggest one thing, please pick a term that has a positive connotation rather than a negative one to describe our rollups. Here are some alternatives:

  • Validated rollups
  • Assured rollups
  • Secured rollups
  • Fortified rollups
  • Verified rollups
  • Proactive rollups
  • Prevalidated rollups
  • Vigilant rollups
  • Prudent rollups
  • Certified rollups
  • Premium rollups
  • Trusted rollups
  • Instant rollups

Additionally, the term “Cynical rollup” is not common in other ecosystems, may not translate well in other languages, and doesn’t really even fit.

5 Likes

The logic sounds good. Polkadot 2.0 replaced Polkadot 1.0, just like Ethereum 2.0 replaced Ethereum 1.0. And “Polkadot” should be the primary brand that we push forward.

However, the primary difference between the JAM upgrade and Ethereum’s (or between the JAM upgrade and the Polkadot 1.0 → 2.0 upgrade) is that JAM isn’t exactly replacing Polkadot 2.0. JAM will host the Polkadot relay chain (as a Parachain/Rollup service) and other services. So both will technically exist.

In my opinion, the decision of naming JAM Polkadot 3.0 depends on what our definition of the “Polkadot” brand is:

Should the primary definition of the “Polkadot” brand be as a protocol or as an ecosystem? If it’s the former, then Polkadot 3.0 sounds okay (although it’s proportionally a way larger upgrade than the Polkadot 1.0 → 2.0 upgrade).

But if it’s the latter (ie, primarily portray the Polkadot brand as an ecosystem), then it’s probably better to leave “Polkadot” as-is without numberings and just name and versions of protocols that the Polkadot ecosystem runs on.

A good example is Apple. Apple is an ecosystem. The name never changes and doesn’t have any suffixing with versions. But the name and versioning of the OS and CPU that the Apple ecosystem runs on changes as time goes by, and so do the products available in their ecosystem (Apple iPhone, MacBook, iMac, earpods, etc). But the key brand remains “Apple”… No versioning, no numbering, no Apple 2.0

The best approach, in my opinion:

  • The branding: Polkadot. No versions, no suffixes. This is the brand. This is the ecosystem
  • Polkadot 2.0 → The Polkadot Relay chain, which will become the Polkadot Parachains Service on JAM
  • JAM → the foundational layer of Polkadot. This can be called Polkadot JAM. If there are any major JAM upgrades in the future, then we call it Polkadot JAM 2.0, etc.

That way, we can market the right things to the right audience.

5 Likes

I fully support all the arguments in the article!

  • All details and DOT clarifications as a basic token from key figures are needed.
  • More proof of love for DOT and DOT holders is needed.
  • DOT holders support progress; the more true DOT believers we have, the more stable the ecosystem will be.This thesis could be incorporated into a marketing strategy.
  • We as marketing and community teams can focus on this, and the key players need to talk about it and inspire current and new token holders to participate in all the superb activities across the ecosystem!
3 Likes

Fully agree and I already asked for not using that terminology.

1 Like

After a first round of feedback mostly via Twitter/X, I would like to propose the following:

  • Never use the word “dead” when marketing Polkadot
  • Polkadot, at some point, will upgrade to the JAM chain. This means JAM will be a major technical upgrade, but the brand will remain Polkadot. See this reply from @OliverTY
  • DOT will remain the token of the Polkadot ecosystem
  • Versioning Polkadot using the JAM chain (instead of the relay chain) won’t be Polkadot 3.0, just Polkadot, as versioning the brand is something that fragments the narrative and social capital, see this post

Brand: Polkadot
Technology/product/service provider: JAM Chain
Token/software: DOT

This is a major technical upgrade, not a usual runtime upgrade. This raises the issue that runtime upgrades in our ecosystem are currently diluting the “big” things happening. To me, upgrades like asynchronous backing, elastic scaling, coretime, and JAM must shadow all the other “minor” upgrades. This is why now there is a feeling that Polkadot’s JAM upgrade is “not enough” to tell people that this is a new thing. But I am confident that this is something mostly affecting the core community and some users. The general public and new joiners won’t be affected much.

3 Likes

We honestly really need a suffix name to refer to the “current” Polkadot.

Here’s a (radical) proposal:

  • Polkadot 1.0/2.0 is referred to as “Polkadot Legacy”
  • JAM upgrade is referred to as “Polkadot JAM”

They can be shortened, when discussing internally, as “Legacy” and “JAM”.

If there’s question that Polkadot may be “dead”, then we make sure we have the necessary terms in place to signal that radical changes have been taking place – from Polkadot Legacy to Polkadot JAM.

2 Likes

We should use version numbers but measure them in μg, so Polkadot 20μg, Polkadot 30μg, etc.

4 Likes

Why do we need these suffixes? Is Polkadot 2.0 really going to be Legacy, though? Do the suffixes really affect how the end users use Polkadot?

I mean, if I wanted to play games on Mythical or use a Polkadot Card, I’d care less about “Polkadot JAM” or “Polkadot Legacy”, but care more about how smooth my experience is with using services on Polkadot. Bringing in these suffices would end up causing more confusion for users, which is something we’re already trying hard to avoid.

Ofc, from a technical standpoint, builders should get what’s going on under the hood to make informed decisions on the stack to build with on Polkadot. So, it’s safe to say that suffices are only really important for builders and technical people, but are of no importance to Average Joe, who just wants to run his daily life with Polkadot (with a reliable and secure network, fast and cheap transactions, good liquidity, etc).

So yes, suffices are important, just shouldn’t be a component of user-facing branding imo

If you wanted to play games on Mythical, then you wouldn’t care about Polkadot at all. You would probably care about how smooth the experience is on the Mythical blockchain, but whether the underlying tech is “powered by Polkadot”, “powered by Avalanche”, “powered by Solana”, etc, doesn’t matter.

For the rest of the points, I agree – Legacy vs JAM is a builder’s perspective.

As the ecosystem matures, I have noticed some hesitation around continuing with the versioning nomenclature of Polkadot 1.0, 2.0, and the potential 3.0. While versioning is technically accurate, it does not effectively communicate the evolving value and architecture of the network to a broader audience, and it fragments the brand.

I propose we evolve our naming strategy into something more product- and technology-aligned, similar to what other ecosystems, like Solana, have done. For example, Solana introduced Firedancer not simply as “Solana validator 2.0,” but as a bold, distinct product identity. This shift helped generate interest beyond the developer community and better highlighted the significance of the upgrade.

We can do something similar while maintaining clarity and unity under the Polkadot brand:

Proposed Naming Structure:

  • Polkadot RelayCore 1: The original Polkadot (1.0) built on the Relay Chain model.
  • Polkadot RelayCore 2: What’s currently being called Polkadot 2.0, featuring async backing, elastic scaling, and coretime. Still fundamentally Relay Chain–based, but vastly more powerful and efficient.
  • Polkadot JAMCore 1: The first production version of the JAM Chain: a significant architectural shift that deserves a fresh name while retaining Polkadot as the umbrella brand.

We could also get rid of the numbers and just give a new name every time there is a major key upgrade. In 5 years, Polkadot had two major upgrades: Polkadot 1.0, which includes several minor upgrades; and Polkadot 2.0, which also includes a multitude of minor runtime upgrades.

Why this matters:

  • Avoids version fatigue: “Polkadot 3.0” or “4.0” lacks emotional resonance and can be easily overlooked.
  • Highlights technical evolution: “RelayCore” vs. “JAMCore” immediately signals the underlying architectural differences.
  • Keeps the Polkadot brand whole: By prefixing with “Polkadot,” we retain cohesion and brand equity, while still allowing room for innovation.
  • Creates narrative momentum: “Polkadot RelayCore 2 is here” is far more compelling than “Polkadot 2.0 is live.”

On top of this, Polkadot will retain the DOT token as JAM is a major tech upgrade and not a rebranding.

4 Likes

I like this proposal! This works nicely:

Compatibility Hub provides a coherent design that works natively both on RelayCore and on JAMCore.

1 Like

Since Polkadot 2.0 hasn’t been fully introduced yet, is there a notable timeframe for when the upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 happens?

From what I’ve gathered, 2.0 was supposed to be rolling out around, NOW (:sweat_smile:), and 3.0 (JAM) was initially slated for Q3/Q4 2025, most likely sometime 2026?

(I’m personally not worried, as you know, development takes a considerable amount of time, with Polkadot being development-centered with developers having reigning control over the distribution of new updates, but not everyone has that same enthusiasm?

The general consensus I’ve noticed is that Polkadot is generally hated amongst many circles regarding following through on updates and keeping the community informed on when the final product is going to be released?)

I was a beta tester on the IBC Centauri Bridge for DOT<>KSM, and despite Picasso-Composable/Cosmos exceeding in their goal in sustaining the bridge, with Hydration now being able to distribute assets cross-chain between the two? Their entire community turned against them for not following through on distributing LAYR, while not securing a future parachain slot for either network.

At some point, development does have to meet deadlines and follow through on promises made, or the community will turn against them! It’s hard for me to understand how Gavin Wood’s reputation from constructing Ethereum, to building Polkadot from the ground up, to where we are now? With Polkadot 2.0 and JAM right around the corner? Just boggles my mind how very little interest is in Polkadot?

I’ll give you an example: the centrifuge left the shelf and they immediately had liquidity. Maybe we should work with foundations? It was created very poorly for Defi. Moreover, inflation has been high all this time and it was not easy to compete with network staking. This is also how pools were created by software. why would I, say, carry 100dot in defi if I can put it in the pool? If I don’t have a minimum threshold.

I think polkadot doesn’t want to change a little bit. Can you name a meme that exists on polkadot? which one has a capitalization of over 50 million? name a slipper that is whatever it is? name the rwa project? which exists on polkadot besides the centrifuge? have you made a bridge with Ethereum? And? when there will be a dot on aave, uniswap with a pool of over 1 million $

1 Like

Fair and realistic. Every project I’ve followed that didn’t have a foundation, failed. Imo, cryptocurrencies are not used, at all, for meaningful purposes that don’t just generate money for themselves?

There is no purpose to not stake it. It sits around like variable tech stock. There’s nothing notable on Polkadot currently, that is really exceptional, that has a use for DOT?

I feel the same way for this entire industry of cryptocurrencies people do not use? Literally. People do not use them. It’s like a big pit of generating more of itself without a purpose outside itself. Kinda like fiat, except you can spend money easily.