Polkadot Solo Dev Post-Mortem Experience

1

Hello Polkadot Community,

I’m reaching out as a solo developer who’s been quietly active in the Polkadot ecosystem, sharing my post-mortem experience before I step away. My goal here isn’t to burn bridges—far from it. I genuinely want Polkadot to thrive and grow, so I’m offering this feedback in good faith, hoping it sparks some constructive discussion.

Starting with the fundamentals: There’s an undercurrent of disdain from some established players who demand respect and professionalism but rarely extend the same courtesy. It often feels like dealing with petty gatekeepers defending the space, more focused on defending their turf than welcoming newcomers. You’d expect more genuine effort to attract and onboard fresh devs, but instead, it seems like there’s little incentive to stick around unless you’re already part of a well-connected team. And honestly, if you’re not in those circles, the environment can border on hostile. I’ve heard similar stories from others who’ve left for friendlier blockchains, and I doubt I’m the first or last to feel this way. It’s not about one bad apple—it’s a systemic vibe that pushes talent out the door.

Looking ahead, I worry the upcoming hackathons won’t move the needle much either. Polkadot excels at drawing in new devs initially—the tech is innovative, after all—but there’s no solid landing zone to keep them engaged. Without addressing the retention issues I’ve outlined, we’ll keep seeing the same cycle: hype, participation, then exodus. If the focus shifted toward inclusive onboarding, mentorship for solos, and transparent resource allocation, that could change everything.

This is more disappointing than anything else. I’ve tried to justify spending more time working on Polkadot, but I can’t do it anymore without broader reforms. For instance, I applied for a Fast Grant, only to wait two months for a generic denial. Undeterred, I followed up with the Polkadot Open Source Grant, waited another month with zero response, and eventually had to close the application myself. I don’t even mind if my ideas aren’t a fit—it’s the blatant disregard for applicants’ time that’s impossible to ignore.

I truly believe what I was building for Polkadot would have added great value, but who knows for sure? I would have loved to bring Omnipass to the world with Polkadot, but the ecosystem is not ready for that, and there seems to be no desire to build what’s needed to get there. I’ve been quietly active, watching the same problems persist.

Final Words
I held off on posting this until my OpenGov proposal (#1716) wrapped up, so I could share the final stats. As expected, it failed—only ~766K DOT (2.9%) in Aye votes against ~25.57M DOT (97.1%) Nay, with support at a measly 0.02% of issuance. I kinda hoped some of the Nay voters (45 total) might circle back to work something out or at least explain their reasoning, but nope—only five bothered to give me the time of day with feedback. So, at what point do you just say enough and move on? The Polkadot community isn’t showing support with their time, and they’re clearly not going to show it financially either. Why keep pouring effort into something that isn’t giving back in return?

Thanks for reading,

6 Likes
2

Hi Swen - First, thank you very much for the feedback. I did want to mention a few things in response though.

I’ll first note that I did not see any submissions for Omnipass through the Web3 Foundation Grants Program ( Code search results · GitHub ). But there are other grants programs out there, as you mention. Over the summer, the Fast Grants program had a big backlog for a variety reasons (enumerated recently in the Telegram chat, if you’re a part of it), and perhaps we could do a better job letting people know about all the grants programs available (e.g. https://grants.web3.foundation/ )

Receiving a Treasury Proposal generally is difficult - it’s asking for money up-front with absolutely no guarantee that the person will do the work. I note that your TP was asking for approximately $50k USD in funds, which for a person new to the ecosystem is quite a big ask.

“There’s an undercurrent of disdain from some established players who demand respect and professionalism but rarely extend the same courtesy. It often feels like dealing with petty gatekeepers defending the space, more focused on defending their turf than welcoming newcomers.”

I would like to see details of this, if you can (feel free to share privately). If anyone working for me is continuously acting disdainfully towards builders, they will not be working for me for long.

5 Likes
3

Hi Bill,

Thanks for taking the time to respond—I really appreciate you engaging with my post. I want to clarify a few things and keep this conversation constructive, as my frustration is aimed at the broader community dynamic, not Web3 Foundation or Parity. Everyone I’ve interacted with from W3F and Parity has been professional and supportive, doing their best in a complex ecosystem. My issue lies with the community’s lack of enthusiasm and engagement, which I’ll detail below.

First, a bit about my history: I’ve been active in Polkadot since the parachain auctions, contributing where I thought I could add value, though I’ve kept a low profile. My OpenGov proposal (#1716, Fundation) wasn’t for Omnipass directly—that’s the endgame, a user-friendly dApp framework. Fundation was the starting point, a modular toolkit to help Web2 devs build on Polkadot, addressing the ecosystem’s need for more dApps. To clarify, the funding ask was ~15K USDT (~7.65K DOT, worth ~30K USD at the time of proposal on Aug 18, totaling ~45K USD—close to your $50K estimate, likely due to DOT’s price rise since then). I’d have been fine with a metric-based payout (e.g., “X dApps built” or “Y dev feedback”) or even working for free if the community showed active interest. The problem? Only 5 out of 45 Nay voters gave feedback on #1716. That silence—more than the funding—killed my drive. I get more excitement from random crypto folks outside Polkadot than from the community here, despite their incentives to grow the ecosystem.

On grants: My Fast Grant (Fundation, not Omnipass—sorry for any naming confusion) took two months for a generic denial, and the Open Source Grant sat unanswered for a month until I closed it. I hear you on the summer backlog, but a heads-up like “we’re swamped, expect X weeks” would’ve gone a long way. Generic rejections or silence make it feel like solo devs’ time isn’t valued. If a project’s a bad fit, why not say so clearly? Otherwise, it leaves devs unsure, leading them to exit to other ecosystems.

On the “disdain” vibe: This isn’t about W3F or Parity—it’s community-driven. For example, during #1716, most Nay voters (DAOs included) didn’t engage, even after I offered to meet or lock funds to metrics. It’s the collective apathy, not individual malice, that feels like gatekeeping. At this rate, we’re going to have more people managing Polkadot than building on it.

I hope this all helps. I want Polkadot to succeed even after I leave—I’m not selling my DOT, and I still have some good people here I consider friends.

Cheers

2 Likes
4

I originally wanted to check your voting record on other OpenGov proposals to see if you had ever cast a Nay vote, but unfortunately it seems you haven’t participated in any votes.

1 Like
5

Hey, first-welcome back. Love the engagement. You won’t see any voting under that wallet, and even when I do, it’s sparingly since I don’t have the time to give proper feedback. I’m not going to vote just for the sake of voting.

This feedback is really about people who should be more engaged but aren’t. I have a decent amount of DOT, though it’s in the red, and not enough to justify building out a whole builders’ community. At the end of the day, if you’re going to have such high expectations for developers, the same should be expected of the people judging them.

This is feedback-take it and use it, or don’t.

2 Likes
6

Hey Swen,

I’ve seen you quite active on X for a really long time engaging in the Polkadot ecosystem posts and spaces, I recently saw your post as well about leaving.

I can admit that it may not be as easy as its supposed to be to navigate the ecosystem especially being solo dev but dont think you should give up now when so many things in this ecosystem are getting improved.

Please lets get in touch on X, while I’m in no capacity to help with grants/funding perhaps I can help with ideas on how you can get more support for your ideas from the community.

2 Likes
7

Hey Kratistos, always down to connect—I added who I think is you on X. You should join me when Hope sets up her weekly X space, just to show support. You should join too.: https://x.com/Hopeioum/status/1966608225433739389

1 Like
8

Thanks for sharing this. Unfortunately your experience has become the norm lately despite ongoing efforts by some to improve things. Too often silence replaces support.

DVs not leaving feedback is part of the problem. Feedback is not optional, it is literally core to the role. Without a feedback loop, builders lose interest/hope, and trust in OpenGov erodes further.

If we want Polkadot to thrive, we cannot keep letting these issues slide.

7 Likes
9

Flez, you’re 100% right. I honestly hope nothing but the best for you. Your feedback on my proposal was really appreciated-thanks for taking the time

1 Like
10

Sup Swent,

I second, the barrier of entry for buider is high, you have to master substrate and socialization for respectively the security of your chain and the success of your proposal.

hot take : most of the guys able to build are parachain aren’t that good (or interested) in over socialization

1 Like
11

Hey Polykrate, spot on-those entry barriers are real. To get new small devs on board, you’d need 2-4 hours to onboard them to Polkadot, plus extra time to get them actively engaging. Builders just wanna build

1 Like
12

Thanks for sharing — I’ve seen the same gatekeeping and group dynamics you describe. There’s a faction that dominates bounties and governance signals, narrows Polkadot to DeFi, and resists broader ecosystem-growth ideas like mine. That’s not healthy.

We can still change course, but it requires decisive action and fairer funding rules. If you want to keep working on Polkadot, consider joining a DAO aligned with ecosystem expansion — it’s a way to team up with like‑minded people and push for concrete policy fixes together. I’m committed to advocating for transparency, accountability, and clearer funding processes in OpenGov; if anyone wants to collaborate on specific reforms, speak up.

Lets do this.

1 Like
13

The concerns about developer retention ring true. Attracting talent is one thing, but without a structured support system, most new contributors will eventually leave. A consistent mentorship program or open feedback loop could help address this gap.

1 Like
14

Yes, Onepebble, Polkadot still has time to change, and it’s not like I don’t want it to succeed -otherwise, I wouldn’t have written this. The point is, I can’t spend any more time working on Polkadot. I had to make a decision: keep spinning my wheels with Polkadot or move on to greener pastures. That said, if you need help with anything, you can always contact me, and I’ll do my best to make time to reply.

1 Like
15

Starting with the fundamentals: There’s an undercurrent of disdain from some established players who demand respect and professionalism but rarely extend the same courtesy. It often feels like dealing with petty gatekeepers defending the space, more focused on defending their turf than welcoming newcomers

100%.

there’s little incentive to stick around unless you’re already part of a well-connected team. And honestly, if you’re not in those circles, the environment can border on hostile.

Indeed. There are always initiatives underway to try to change the, idk what to call it - ‘cultural structure’ ?? - but these are also not going to succeed purely with volunteer labour, and those proposing funding them are met with even more suspicion than solo devs.

Polkadot excels at drawing in new devs initially—the tech is innovative, after all—but there’s no solid landing zone to keep them engaged.

Exactly right again. And, again, changing this structure would cost money and involve taking risks. And anybody who proposes it will be pretty quickly criticised, and their proposals fail anyway.

The structures that exist to get new devs involved have the weight of Parity behind them, so they are safe.
But the journey for devs after entry into the ecosystem relies on being picked up by Parity or w3f, as parachains don’t have the spare cash (because we have no dapps or users in our ecosystem - chicken and egg) and opengov prefers short term multimillion dollar gambles because the big token holders would prefer a fast change of direction of token price than to build a long-term self-sustaining ecosystem.

it’s the blatant disregard for applicants’ time that’s impossible to ignore.

I can’t comment on w3f, but can confirm this glove fits Parity and their associated entities. And you’ve seen how opengov is when you don’t have influential friends to help things along.

I do believe that the people involved don’t actually realise the cost of what you raised in your second paragraph. They see a constant stream of proposals to consider, a pipeline of devs that come and go, and figure (forgetting that they are already paying for this pipeline) that it’s just a force of nature, that talent will always be available for the ecosystem to pick up once it decides that devs might be needed. The counter to that is that, the longer this persists, the more talent will walk away and, yes, they will be replaced, but those that walked are those with most experience in the eco (and in web3) and those that saw Polkadot’s potential early on (ie the most invested in it). And when people part ways with Polkadot feeling frustrated, disdained, undervalued, they are pretty resistant to coming back.

1 Like
16

Hey Mork, I’d disagree on Parity and Web3 Foundation-they’ve been awesome to me. If you can stick it out, their OpenGov entry might shake things up-fewer people phoning it in if higher-ups ask questions. On money, you’re right: the community rewards big promises with no accountability for flops. Aside from that, we’re aligned! Stepping away from building doesn’t mean I don’t want Polkadot to succeed-I’ve got other joys to chase. If you’ve got the passion, I think it’s gonna get better!

1 Like
17

Well, I’ve seen no gatekeeping at w3f, I just meant I don’t have any experience to judge by with them (they’ve been helpful and supportive when I have run into w3f folks in person - but I’ve never done a grant application or entered any kind of process with them).

If you’ve got the passion, I think it’s gonna get better!

Whether I still have passion and whether it’s gonna get better are independent variables.
I’d be delusional to spend energy on the former in the hope of it affecting the latter.

1 Like
18

Hey Mork,

I get your point on W3F-your lack of grant experience explains the different take, and I’m glad you’ve had solid in-person vibes with them. My reply aimed to clarify that Parity and W3F have great folks, with the real issue lying outside their core circle-maybe I overgeneralized initially to avoid personal jabs.

I see your logic on passion and improvement being separate; I won’t argue, but I believe passion can still spark change if it’s your sole focus. Polkadot’s timeline doesn’t fit my goals, so I’m shifting energy elsewhere-ironically, I’ve got more time to chat with the community now that I’m not building. The irony isn’t lost on me either-lol!

Catch you at Hope’s X Space tomorrow, Thursday, September 25, 2025, at 10 AM EST, to keep the convo going:

1 Like
19

Polkadot has initiatives like the Polkadot Blockchain Academy (PBA) and comprehensive developer documentation, making it easier for devs to get started.

On the funding side, the key is to focus on an idea or MVP that addresses real demand within the Polkadot ecosystem. In my experience, the grants program has been both flexible and supportive, backing projects with good potential and ecosystem alignment.

image
image3840×2160 430 KB

For example, you can see the list of approved grants:

1 Like
20

yeah man I know exactly how it feels! I think the biggest lesson here is when you say “been quietly active” which means people don’t know you as much you think they do. Talking from experience, I just did a post today about the project I’m building and I shared with my whole list of contacts and groups. Received a lot of “good work” in private but no one left a comment. Although most of them left or a reaction on the post which is something :zany_face:

I spent two months “quietly” building this while sharing with closest friends and some influent contacts here and there.

Now I’m in public and apparently no one cares and that sucks but I think this is just an effect of something new and people are busy doing other things, I’m a former believer that consistency speaks louder than words and that’s the mantra I’m using to swallow this lack of feedback and keep building.

2 Likes