Thank you for sharing this.
Even though I empathize deeply with the sentiment of your missive, I find some of it in tension with the goal of building a global, stable transaction protocol with worldwide adoption. Stability is key—and I believe the core plutarchy has recognized this, acting accordingly with the DAP proposal presented just yesterday here in the forum:
Proposal: Dynamic Allocation Pool (DAP)
You raise an important cultural point about marketing expenditures. Living in Latin America, I can relate to the challenges of cultural mismatch—(though my “follow the ball” sport of choice is Rugby, not football). While I can’t evaluate the specific impact of that league partnership, I take your word on how ineffective such moves might be when aiming for global reach.
A Different Perspective: Efficiency over Sentiment
My focus is efficiency-driven. That’s why I proposed an original, out-of-the-box convex optimization model to be considered as a resource optimizer for blockspace management. Unfortunately, it received little reception—and analyzing the context, it’s clear that my model was designed for high-throughput transactional scenarios, which is not yet the case today: we have around 70 cores available, with only about 47 sold during the last auction phase at a fixed price.
Moreover, it’s become evident how difficult it is to promote a mathematical hack without exposing the solution itself. I don’t fault those who’ve attempted to understand it and haven’t succeeded yet—but through this journey, I’ve also gained insight into the personalities and structures at play within this plutarchic layer.
I Request For Comments on it here:
RFC: Convex Optimization-based Blockspace Management
This experience also highlights a deeper contradiction in the oft-cited slogan of “less trust.” From my phenomenological standpoint—in which the observer and the observing are the phenomenon—trust is not something to be minimized. It is biologically fundamental. That’s a long philosophical thread I won’t unwind here, but suffice it to say: trust is key.
On Governance, Communication, and Evolution
Returning to the plutarchy, it seems that this central role of trust is now being slowly reintegrated into the governance model. I remain here—not out of comfort, but out of intellectual curiosity.
As a participant in the 3rd cohort of the Polkadot Blockchain Academy (held at one of the Pacific’s most important intellectual venues), I’ve observed some immature communication patterns that risk undermining Polkadot’s global message. This tension between technical excellence and mass adoption is non-trivial.
Still, Parity and the Web3 Foundation have opened this space for interaction, which I see as a very welcome foundation for building the critical mass we need.
Hayek, Denationalised Money, and Long-Term Stability
Coming from a classically liberal perspective, I find Friedrich Hayek’s The Denationalisation of Money more relevant than ever for blockchain-based economies. His critique of monopolized money issuance is not only insightful about inefficiencies in interest rate policy, but even more so about the importance of monetary stability over time.
That said, money must also be efficient. This is where I respectfully depart from your conclusions. I fully advocate for a totally efficient transactional architecture—self-financed, not subsidized, and sustained by all participating economic agents: stakers, holders, and transactional users who seek optimal value from the infrastructure they rely on.
In this view, grants or subsidies are not signs of strength, but rather of the protocol’s immaturity. We may not yet be ready to fully replace legacy transaction systems—but we are building toward that readiness, and that alone is reason to continue.
Final Thought: Critical Mass through Critical Thought
Critical mass, whether formed by sentiment or rational design, is essential. These critiques—yours included—form the pressure gradient through which Polkadot might evolve into the most stable and efficient transactional substrate for the global economy.
Let us keep watching, contributing, and iterating.