Polkadot Growth Strategy Report: Building a Continuously Growing Future for Polkadot


Greetings to all friends who are concerned about Polkadot. We are the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute, a dedicated team focused on researching development opportunities and prospects within the Polkadot ecosystem. We have been consistently supported by the Polkadot Treasury on six occasions.

As a team that has been studying Polkadot for nearly five years, we have heard increasing voices of discouragement in the community recently. Many members are losing hope and even leaving the Polkadot ecosystem, which is something we are unwilling to witness.

However, with OpenGov launched on Polkadot, we have observed that governance rights are being increasingly transferred to the community. This positions us as a driving force behind the development of Polkadot. As a result, we have made the decision to transition from our previous role of passive research to one of active engagement.

This report represents our strategic planning on how we believe Polkadot should grow, many of which are results of our years of research.

This report will directly address the market rather than just technology and ideals. We aim to confront the most critical issues head-on while proposing improvement strategies and suggestions. Of course, we have also noticed that many teams are actively proposing solutions for the current challenges faced by Polkadot in the official forums and community. However, these solutions often target individual problems without considering a comprehensive resolution from a holistic perspective or unified approach within a strategic framework.

Challenges faced by Polkadot

Economic Model Issues

Many users and the community have expressed concerns regarding Polkadot’s economic model, including a relatively high inflation rate, limited DOT token use cases, and concerns about the DOT’s value.Polkadot’s DOT adopts an inflationary monetary policy, with a current inflation rate of approximately 7.38% (based on data from Subscan.io), which is considered much high. And Polkadot’s DOT token currently has relatively limited use cases.

Operational Issues

Poor On-Chain Data Performance
Poor Social Media Data Performance
Lack of Data Presentation

User Barrier Issue

Polkadot’s current high level of professionalism is not user-friendly for newcomers, and the Polkadot barrier exists in terms of both usage difficulty and learning challenge.The functionality and tools provided by Polkadot may have a relatively high level of operational difficulty for the general users. Additionally, Polkadot’s technical documents and tutorials might be overly specialized, making it hard for ordinary users to understand.

Treasury Governance Issue

Polkadot’s treasury governance mechanism is considered one of the most advanced in the blockchain industry. However, due to its pioneering nature, it currently faces challenges, which include low voter participation, game theory attacks, and non-representativeness (whales). Despite Polkadot adopts the decentralized governance model OpenGov, allowing community members to participate in decision-making process, in reality, there is a lack of active voter participation and proposal submissions.

How can Polkadot break through the current market?

Overall strategy: Uniting the power of governance

For Polkadot to improve, it must progress towards synergistic development between the official and decentralized governance. While the Polkadot officials have their roadmap and operational approach, the treasury governance should also have its roadmap and approach. The officials raise Polkadot’s ceiling, while the treasury governance raises its floor.

Balancing Price and Development

By not considering boosting the price, one might implement measures at inopportune times, making efforts inefficient. Therefore, our strategic reports are designed from the standpoint of facilitating Polkadot’s growth.

Strategic Positioning and Goals

Polkadot’s positioning should not merely be viewed as a multi-core computer but should be seen from the Omnichain map perspective, where it functions as a multi-core computer for the Omnichain map. To achieve this positioning, a goal must be attained: to consolidate genuine users and funds for Polkadot, forming a network effect. To achieve this objective, we need two types of tasks: maintaining stability, ensuring steady development to retain existing users, assets, and applications on Polkadot, and constructing a more attractive developmental prospect for Polkadot.

Solutions or Approaches

The “Governance Framework” of Polkadot

Our ultimate goal with the treasury governance is to ensure Polkadot develops effectively. In fact, this goal is consistent with the project’s overall objective. So what departments are needed to operate a project, we can also build a similar system based on the governance of the Treasury. For example, there are technical departments specializing in research and development, and there are marketing departments specializing in publicity. This framework treats the governance of the Polkadot Treasury as the governance of a nation, establishing different government departments, including: Technical Department, Publicity Department, Investment Department, Governance Department, and Activities Department.

  • Technical Department: Directing technical experts and members of the Technical Fellowship to develop necessary tech products, tools, projects for Polkadot (including tech training support).
  • Public Relations Department: Organizing and managing media and communities funded by the treasury, setting promotional tasks to spread Polkadot’s message.(including supporting media, community)
  • Investment Department: Attracts more outstanding projects to be born or migrated to the direction needed by Polkadot through strategic investment and establishing funds similar to government industrial funds.
  • Governance Department: Updating and iterating policies related to governance, encouraging users to actively participate in Polkadot governance.
  • Events Department: Mainly supporting hackathons or events required by the official and ecosystem.

Ten Strategic Objectives for Polkadot’s Treasury Governance

① Launch policies to support LSDFi projects and other DeFi projects (lending, AMM, decentralized stablecoins) within the Polkadot ecosystem.
② Introduce a public chain incentive program when the timing is appropriate.
③ Launch policies to encourage the development of RWA, Web2.5, and DePIN.
④​Build public goods on a long-term basis.
⑤Establish a Citizen System.
⑥Design Polkadot’s Long-term Odyssey Plan.
⑦Make Polkadot More Open and Maintain its Technological Advance.
⑧Make Polkadot the Core of Omnichain Map.
⑨Mobilize all ecosystem participants to promote and popularize Polkadot together.
⑩ Establish a feedback iteration mechanism.

Three areas for improvement

Improving inflation: dynamically adjust inflation.
Enhance Operations and Lower Barriers
Improve Governance Features


Of course, the above is just the core of our in-depth report, detailed report content and strategic thinking logic, please check out this link: https://twitter.com/Polkadot_ERI/status/1714556856302215663

About Us

Polkadot Ecology Research Institute was founded in October 2020, it has been in operation for exactly three years. In the past 36 months, we’ve produced 185 in-depth articles on Polkadot ecology, with an average of over 5,000 words per article and some even exceeding 10,000 words. In total, we have generated over 1 million words of original content and have become the most productive research institution for Polkadot original content production in the Chinese community.

If you have any suggestions about this report, please feel free to raise them for further discussion.


Good morning - I have to say that I’m pretty surprised that I’ve never heard of the Polkadot Ecology Research Institute before, especially considering you’ve been supported by the Treasury on six (?) previous occasions.

Where have these reports been published? Who have they been sent to? Who commissioned this and what outcomes have they produced?

The “community” has by-and-large come to many of these conclusions already in recent months (some much earlier tbh) and many are actively working to tackle them head-on. See some recent summaries & discussions posted in this forum by @alice_und_bob : Developer Experience must be our #1 Priority, Towards a Treasury Budget, Polkadot Governance Framework - v2023.09 - as well as discussions (leading to action) on Adjusting the current inflation model to sustain Treasury inflow.

I am glad that you will be looking to play a more engaged role in this ecosystem, as research without distribution and action does nothing to drive this ecosystem forward. You’ll find that this forum is a great place for you to start engaging with builders and contributors to tackle the most pressing issues - looking forward to seeing your contributions :raised_hands:

1 Like

Interesting post. However I disagree with most points (sometimes I’m not sure what is meant e.g. with ‘policies’).

Imho Polkadot should focus on its core business:
-provide shared security
-provide interoperability

To make Polkadot attractive it needs to offer a good developer and user experience, easy cross-chain messaging, low transaction times, and economic incentives (running parachains/threads need be cheaper than running a solo chain).

Abolishing the auctions is a good step to reduce barriers to the entry into Polkadot.

It should not explicitly support DeFi projects or RWA, Web2.5 projects etc.


Thank you for the interesting read. We enjoy this type of content and deep strategical outlook.

In your opinion, where would blockchain service providers like the ones listed below fit in the “Omnichain map”?

In general though, we have to agree with @cpiccard that the strategy should not be heavily skewed towards DeFi or “web 2.5” projects. The DeFi/NFT hype has already passed and we should center on emerging avenues. We also still see potential for RWA use-cases and continuous attestation oracles for these assets.

Of course, the DeFi user base is not negligible, but to capture the general public a better strategy would be to align with what Telegram is doing with TON.
If anyone is able to bring a Polkadot TON-equivalent to an Asian platform like WeChat or Kakao, we agree that there’s potential for a big capture.


Yes, yes and yes

One page where you can find them publishing content about 2 times a week is here - 专栏详情 - Foresight News

For the remainder of your questions, you can partially refer to Polkadot proposals 50, 55, 66, 102, 183, 265 & 275


Let me add more facts.

First of all, I’m really glad to receive your feedback.

Before, we have been providing content support for the Chinese community, and only recently started to publish more English content, so our main influence is on the Chinese community side, but later we will show more of our research content to the global field.

Previously, most of our reports were also published in Chinese on well-known blockchain media platforms in China. And this report is the same, and was recommended to many media platforms’ homepages or banner pages, which usually requires payment or content to be good enough to have such an opportunity.

No one commissioned us to do this report, but as an organization that has been researching Polkadot for nearly five years, we sincerely hope that Polkadot can achieve better development, so we made such a strategic report.

We often provide strategic consulting and incubation support services for different projects in our daily work. We have provided support for dozens of projects with valuations of tens of millions before. We usually participate in projects as strategic consultants, but in projects like Polkadot, we can only act as a third-party role to support.

But after Polkadot’s governance is dedicated to OpenGov, we finally see a way that we can participate more deeply on Polkadot. So, we put our years of research and ideas into this report, hoping to cheer up Polkadot.

Of course, we also hope that more people who have the same idea as us can join in.

Thank you so much for explaining. :+1:

Very good suggestions, in fact, we also agree with your points very much, doing so can indeed make Polkadot better.

But we need to think further, if all these functions are realized, will Polkadot be able to grow?

In fact, many projects that are not as good as Polkadot in terms of technology have developed better than Polkadot today, and some public chains that are better than many public chains in some aspects (such as performance and fees), are still not developing well today, so good technology does not mean that development will get better. Or rather, good technology is not the most critical factor for good development.

We have communicated with hundreds of teams or developers before. The reason they choose which chain to develop on is more important to find a chain with more users, funds and richer ecology to develop on, because this is more likely to bring them greater growth and higher entrepreneurial success rate. So, the key factor should be network effects.

And this point, we also mentioned many times in the report. Polkadot’s network effect is very weak now, so that there are still many teams and applications fleeing from Polkadot or using multi-chain deployment to shift their focus elsewhere, and these are all because Polkadot’s network effect is not enough. And our solutions are mainly based on how to make Polkadot form a more attractive network effect.

Besides, in our proposed solutions, almost every one of them will have corresponding logic to explain. As the report said, we observed how those successful public chains that have passed the novice period achieved it, and hope to sort out a path for Polkadot to grow based on this successful experience. Clearly supporting DeFi or RWA, Web2.5 projects is one of the solutions.

I also understand very well that everyone has their own considerations. If you think it should not clearly support DeFi projects or RWA, Web2.5 projects, please also take some trouble to elaborate on the reasons, so that we can stand from the perspective of solving Polkadot’s dilemma and optimize an executable solution.

In addition, regarding the policies in the report, similar to the government wanting to develop industry, it will issue some relevant support policies for industry. If a public chain wants to develop some specific directions, it can launch some corresponding incentive plans to support the development of a certain direction.

Hope to get more sincere feedback from you.

Thank you so much for your feedback. You mentioned three projects related to modular blockchain. I guess you want to know how modular blockchain fits into the Omnichain map. Actually, modular blockchain is still a chain, so it will also play the role of a chain in the whole chain map, and can interact with other chains through various cross-chain solutions or some ways, there is no essential difference.

Secondly, you think that we should not be seriously biased towards DeFi or Web2.5 projects, because you think that the hype of DeFi/NFT has passed, and we should pay attention to new emerging approaches.

Well, I hope you can bring in such a perspective to think about it.

If you are the person in charge of Polkadot’s operation, under the premise that both resources and time are limited, you can only choose to support one direction, then what direction should you choose?

There are many options at this time, such as DeFi, NFT, blockchain games, and other new emerging approaches. Although the market has become a bear market, the DeFi direction has at least proven that it has the ability to make a public chain grow rapidly and develop an early ecology, and it has been verified by different public chains many times, with a high success rate and practicability.

But NFT and blockchain games have no obvious successful cases. The rest are some new emerging approaches. Although some new emerging approaches seem to have great potential, these approaches have not been verified, and they also have great uncertainty.

At this time, what kind of choice would you make as a person in charge?

Obviously, the first choice is to use the mature path that has been verified many times, at least to make Polkadot have a greater probability of catching up with the progress of other public chains. This is the most prudent step and can make Polkadot have a more stable and solid prospect.

After that, with this foundation, consider other new emerging approaches, which can balance stable development and potential future, and have a higher probability of making Polkadot successful.

We don’t think that the hype of DeFi has passed. As we introduced in the report, the development of DeFi is a necessary financial infrastructure for public chains, which is as important as industrialization to a country. The current situation is that Ethereum, Polygon, Solana and other public chains that have experienced the DeFi boom are equivalent to having completed industrialization in advance, while Polkadot is a little underdeveloped, mainly because it has not completed industrialization.

So, Polkadot must achieve its own industrialization and catch up with the progress of other public chains in this process. Therefore, Polkadot’s priority support for DeFi is essential.

In addition, regarding your suggestion that Polkadot’s strategy should be consistent with Telegram’s approach to TON, I personally think this is difficult because Telegram is currently one of the largest cryptocurrency-related chat software with strong network effects and hundreds of millions of users. Once the network effect of chat software is formed, it is difficult to shake it up. This will face greater difficulties.

It’s like having Facebook already makes it difficult for projects in the same track category to succeed. Often they have to go out of different tracks to work, such as Tiktok.

But at the same time, we can see that Telegram’s Bot is not limited to TON, and even if Telegram supports various projects, how TON can use Telegram to capture value is also a big test for it. It is easy to become a situation where there are more and more ecological applications on Telegram, but TON still has difficulty capturing value.

However, one point I agree with very much is that Telegram has huge traffic and many users who are more friendly to the crypto industry. Therefore, a better strategy for Polkadot is to encourage more Polkadot applications to develop around Telegram and use Telegram as a major entrance for their applications. Make good use of the existing traffic of Telegram instead of recreating another Telegram. This will be more efficient and successful.

What do you think? Any more advice is welcome.

Do you have links to some of these reports? I expect there are some Chinese language readers here, and there’s always machine translation for the rest of us.

Here is a link to view some of the articles: https://foresightnews.pro/column/detail/43

Polkadot do provide scalability to load more users, provides fair funding (you unlikely to go away with scams without delivering the project) and also have richer ecology (reusable rust crates and pallets). Yes learning curve is bit high, its not just because of polkadot, but blockchain itself is also hard to understand, but its worth it if you are building complicated software, that require more customizability, more features, better user experience (e.g. free transaction fees). If you are comparing to ethereum network effect, ethereum is an old chain, most use case are defi and stable coin. Ethereum network is also a network of scammers and meme coins. Blockhain apps are not just web2 apps, its about building incentive systems using game theory along with api for UI. So it not for naive developers.

[quote=“ZouYang, post:11, topic:4317”]
We don’t think that the hype of DeFi has passed
[/quote] Yes we do need defi, but apps like Polkadex is still in development. Cross chain communications seems to be still not fully mature.