Polkadot, Community, Transparency, OpenGov, and Poor Decisions

Miscellaneous
1

I want to open this debate with a topic that has been on my mind for a while: what happened to Polkadot’s community? What drove away those who used to actively participate in the ecosystem?

Community: In this post, I’m referring to the people who consistently contributed to discussions and remained active on social media, Telegram, and Discord.

From my perspective, there are two possibilities:

  1. Lack of incentives.

As several initiatives were shut down and funding was discontinued, the community simply migrated to other ecosystems where their contributions would be fairly valued.

  1. There is no clear place or path to contribute to the ecosystem.

There is no clear roadmap, no announcements, no contact with the devs, and therefore, no verified information that people can confidently share.

W3F’s intervention in OpenGov came at the right time, but in my opinion, it was also somewhat disastrous and lacked a clear objective. To me, it marked the beginning of the decline in community participation across the ecosystem.

Let me explain why I consider it both disastrous and lacking clear objectives.

Disastrous: Because instead of organizing the ecosystem, what they ended up doing was punishing it. A handful of bad actors were simply looking to take advantage of how easily their proposals were being approved through OpenGov, yet the response ended up punishing everyone, including those who genuinely wanted to do good work.

They left the entire community, token holders, and investors without sources of information for months. And to this day, we still haven’t even recovered 50% of that information.

They failed to distinguish between excessive, unnecessary spending and funding that was still needed and could bring value to the ecosystem, provided there was a clear direction.

Lacking clear objectives: The intervention was also carried out without establishing what it was supposed to achieve. Simply shutting everything down without a plan was, in my opinion, a completely irresponsible move.

And now, almost a year later, we still have no clear understanding of why it was done or what it was supposed to accomplish.

We’ve had a year in which transparency has fallen to rock-bottom levels. We still don’t know exactly where Polkadot is headed. Will it focus on EVM? Will it fight against bots? Or will it continue trying to attract devs to build products within the Polkadot App?

This uncertainty is also reflected in the broader crypto space, where you can’t even mention DOT without immediately getting attacked.

Yesterday, a post about Polkadot Vault was published, and all I could think about was how different things could have been if the product had been tested beforehand with a group of users.

Imagine a group where each person documented their experience and had direct access to the devs involved through a private channel, where they could report issues and the developers could address potential bugs and other problems before launch.

That way, by the time the product was presented to the public, we would already have a community that was prepared and aligned on how it works, how to use it, and what advantages it offers over other alternatives.

That is very different from simply saying: “Look, here’s a product. It might have some bugs, but we thought you should know it exists.”

Anyway, I hope things improve and that the values Polkadot still claims to stand for, decentralization and transparency, can genuinely find a way to coexist in this new era.

2

From a purely managerial perspective, very little of what is happening makes sense, either logically or economically. If the argument was that Polkadot’s declining price was largely caused by excessive and unsustainable spending, then, after almost a year of cuts and restructuring, we should have seen some meaningful improvement. Instead, DOT is still trading below the $3–4 range that many people confidently described as the bottom. Of course, price is influenced by multiple factors, but this raises a legitimate question: what exactly has been achieved with all these decisions, and where is the measurable return on the sacrifices that have been imposed on the ecosystem?

Looking at the decisions made by W3F and, more fundamentally, Parity, I struggle to see a coherent strategy. We effectively have one technical team continuing to build infrastructure for a user base that does not exist yet, while another team is developing an app for a user base that also does not exist. Both sides may be producing technically valuable work, but without a clear understanding of who the actual users are, what problems they need solved, and how these products will reach them, development risks becoming an exercise in building for the sake of building.

And if we dig deeper into the history of this ecosystem, another uncomfortable reality emerges: the people who have paid the highest price are often those who, for better or worse, consistently put their faces, time, and reputations on the line to contribute to Polkadot. Meanwhile, others sitting comfortably in positions of power continue to collect substantial salaries while promoting narratives that are becoming increasingly disconnected from technological and market realities in 2026.

Yes, Polkadot has built a technically impressive infrastructure. That achievement should not be dismissed. But technology has continued to evolve, and the problems worth solving have evolved with it. Having a powerful infrastructure is not, in itself, a business strategy, nor does it guarantee adoption. The relevant question is no longer simply what Polkadot can technically do, but why people should choose to use it over the alternatives available to them today.

Continuing to chase an undefined objective, without a clear product strategy, identifiable users, measurable milestones, or accountability for results, is unlikely to produce meaningful outcomes. Instead, it gradually erodes the confidence of investors, alienates the few community members who remain, and eventually risks demoralizing the developers themselves. You cannot expect people to remain committed indefinitely when they cannot understand the direction of the project or see how their contributions fit into a larger plan.

And then there is the triangle between Parity, W3F, and PCF, where decisions appear to be made behind closed doors, with limited transparency for the people expected to support the ecosystem. That is where the whole thing falls apart. You cannot claim to champion decentralization and transparency while leaving the community in the dark about the decisions that shape its future.

Ultimately, Polkadot’s problem is not necessarily a lack of technical talent or funding. It is a lack of strategic coherence, accountability, and alignment between the technology being developed, the products being built, the people expected to use them, and the community that was supposed to help the ecosystem grow.

Until those elements are brought together under a clear and transparent strategy, cutting spending, changing narratives, and continuing to build will accomplish very little. A project cannot sustainably grow by repeatedly asking people to believe in a future that even its own stakeholders seem unable, or unwilling, to clearly explain.