Questions for the Polkadot Community

[shawntabrizi]

In order to try to better align our decentralized community, we should try to come up with answers to some of these basic questions:

• What are we?
• What is our product?
• Where are we heading?
• Where do we want to allocate funds?

Here is how I would answer those questions. I encourage everyone to see if they resonate with my thoughts, and to write down answers of their own and share them.

What are we?

We are a scaling solution for Web3 applications that does not compromise on Web3 values.

We are a community, the largest decentralized organization, trying to integrate our platform to the world.

To go deeper, check out the Polkadot Playbook.

What is our product?

Polkadot’s product is secure, flexible, cheap blockspace and the community which facilitates that.

For builders, our product is directly accessible from a permissionless and open platform.

For users, our products are the guarantees that we give to applications which build on us and that those users use.

That is:

• Low (to even zero) fees
• High up-time and availability
• Global, permissionless access
• High speed, low latency / finality
• etc…

We are also a home for innovators, explorers, underdogs. Those who see problems in the world around us, and think that there are technologies which can help improve the world for everyone. Those who are uncompromising on the values of Web3, and are looking for long term results over the short term distractions.

Where are we heading?

Polkadot is ready to explore the full scope of Web3.

It does include DeFi, where we believe our platform can provide as good if not a better experience than existing DeFi platforms today…

But also much more than DeFi.

Polkadot will be:

• the backbone of new governance systems
• the medium for decentralized social networks
• the home of reliable oracles and prediction markets
• the platform for disseminating truth
• the facilitator for open source development
• and more.

No other Web3 platform today has innovated in the ways that enable these new verticals to actually take advantage of the Web3 value proposition.

Polkadot is headed to be a leader of next generation of decentralized applications.

Where do we want to allocate funds?

• Education
• Advocacy
• Common Goods
• Results

Education

The only way to combat all of the noise in a decentralized ecosystem is to disseminate truth. We must present facts and clarify what is misunderstood. We must ignore (emotionally, mentally) those who are uninterested in learning, but continue to correct the misinformation which they spread. We must create and foster new champions of knowledge, and scale by empowering others to be teachers as well.

Advocacy

We must tell the world Polkadot exists. Not just a name, or a token, or a brand, but a solution to real world problems. One part of this is realizing that not everyone values Web3, and we might be very early for many. Unfortunately this is true for the majority of first world nations. But there are many places where there are problems we can solve for them TODAY.

Common Goods

The free and open source movement often struggles to get funding. Cryptocurrency has somehow created a reverse of that problem. Nonetheless, it is key that we fund those building high quality, useful, free, and open resources to our community.

Results

Polkadot should be a place where people can find success for themselves. This attitude of a “gold rush”, like when people build a startup in Silicon Valley is good. It attracts high quality builders, high quality products, and as a result high quality users. We must show the world that Polkadot will reward impactful results. That you can still become a DOT whale even if you missed on the ICO. That Polkadot can be a place for you to fund your work, build a business, and change the world. We must reward handsomely, and let the market decide the winners. Not use our resources to keep projects/ideas on life support.

In short: pay frugally, reward handsomely.

---

• So what is your take on these questions?
• Where do you strongly agree?
• Where do you strongly disagree?
• What would be your answers to these questions?
• What are the action we should given these answers?

[replghost]

Thanks for posting this! Actually, I have been thinking a lot that we need to have this conversation openly across the different parts of the ecosystem, and it would be great to have leaders from all different kinds of teams to weigh in openly - e.g. technical, business, ecosystem, etc.

Overall, I think there is a dichotomy now that I feel from the ecosystem. Is the product “blockspace” or is the product “products that are built on polkadot’s blockspace?” This needs to be woven back together somehow.

I feel like for a long time, the definition of polkadot is “the thing that helps you build a chain.” But in the past year, especially as we moved into OpenGov, what most people in the community work towards building out is the products that touch the user, not the infrastructure. I’m not commenting on whether either is right or wrong.

What we call “our product” should align with what we are marketing and what BD is pushing adoption of. I would say today, these are not aligned. It could be due to the technical development side having a different vision than the growth side. Or it could be short- and long-term perspectives not being melded coherently yet.

Do you also see this dichotomy, and if so, what do you think about it?

[replghost]

Focusing on results rather than actions is definitely good, but it’s hard to define still what exactly it means. It’s easy to conflate especially when you take timelines into account.

For example, an action now may lead to a result later. (making a JAM client)

Or a result now may be just optimizing for a local maximum. (doubling transactions for one day)

Or maybe multiple people may need to be independently funded to work together to get the best result. (one team makes a parachain and a DF-funded BD team sells it)

How do we talk about results without talking about strategy, goals and timeline? How to get consensus on what type of results matter?

[shawntabrizi]

@replghost

Is the product “blockspace” or is the product “products that are built on polkadot’s blockspace?”

I think one point of my post is our product changes depending on the audience. Blockspace itself has no value to a end user. But is of course extremely valuable and important to a builder.

@replghost

what most people in the community work towards building out is the products that touch the user, not the infrastructure. I’m not commenting on whether either is right or wrong.

I think this is really about where you look. Indeed Parity has been growing teams and focus toward more product oriented services, like the Asset Hub and the Plaza vision, but there is still quite a number of people working on core infrastructure, as is the whole JAM project.

@replghost

What we call “our product” should align with what we are marketing and what BD is pushing adoption of. I would say today, these are not aligned. It could be due to the technical development side having a different vision than the growth side. Or it could be short- and long-term perspectives not being melded coherently yet.

I think our product will eventually be high quality Web3 applications.

Web3 products will build here because we are really a platform which is resilient, scalable, and uncompromising of the underlying web3 values.

@replghost

Focusing on results rather than actions is definitely good, but it’s hard to define still what exactly it means.

We need not define this explicitly IMO.

If we take the main outlet for this to be the treasury, then we can use:

• a proposal from the team about the work they have done, the results they have achieved, and the value they think they have created
• votes from the community to see if they argree with the proposer

By keeping things open in this case, we allow for value to be created in many ways, rather than a specific set of ways we have pre-defined.

Indeed, coming to consensus about how much something is worth, and what kinds of things are worthwhile at all is not super easy, but that is ultimately the job of the proposer to convince the majority of the community of some facts.

[hippiestank]

“What are we?”

This is quite a complex question that probably doesn’t have an answer. Are we a Web3 scaling solution? Yes. Are we a tool kit for developers? Yes. Are we a community of thinkers, builders and risk-takers? Yes. As this ecosystem continues to grow, “we” are going to “be” so much more.

More and more I find myself believing that Polkadot is possibly the greatest social experiment of the digital age. I believe Polkadot has the power to define how humanity interacts with the modern world.

As we shape our society it is very important for us to define our values in a concrete manner and in order to succeed we will have to vigilantly and continuously fight for those values. Discussions like these are extremely important. Thanks for opening the thread.

[replghost]

@shawntabrizi

We need not define this explicitly IMO.

If we take the main outlet for this to be the treasury, then we can use:

• a proposal from the team about the work they have done, the results they have achieved, and the value they think they have created
• votes from the community to see if they argree with the proposer

By keeping things open in this case, we allow for value to be created in many ways, rather than a specific set of ways we have pre-defined.

Indeed, coming to consensus about how much something is worth, and what kinds of things are worthwhile at all is not super easy, but that is ultimately the job of the proposer to convince the majority of the community of some facts.

I generally agree with you on these points and think it would be great if we could get to this state you are describing. How do we change the status quo to get there in practice - to the place where this kind of funding can welcome in and reward important contributors?

How do we change the behavior of proposers to feel comfortable and start doing this? How do we change the culture/environment of OpenGov so this becomes an accepted way to do things?

It’s easy to say that it’s ultimately up to the community/token holders (because that is true by definition), but I think it begs the more practical question of the challenges to make it happen:

a) there can be a social cost / cultural barrier to putting up a proposal that aims to rewards yourself (whether fair or not, being labeled a grifter or double dipper etc.). In addition, “selling yourself” can be a skill that many people don’t feel comfortable with.

b) OpenGov already is “busy” to the point where it’s difficult to evaluate each proposal to the degree that voters have a hard time to keep up, give feedback and consider proposals in a measured way. And the people evaluating/commenting may be vocal beyond their voting weight (conversely large voters may not express feedback at all).

c) Retroactive payment represents a time/financial risk for the actor. Many hungry teams/individuals may not be able to bootstrap this way unless they have income from another source.

d) As someone who has observed opengov closely the past year, the standards of what gets funded changes quite a bit every 1-2 months. This makes it hard to set expectations and provides less certainty to proposers, especially those who are building/contributing but don’t have a lot of time to spend in governance.

[batman]

a) there can be a social cost / cultural barrier to putting up a proposal that aims to rewards yourself (whether fair or not, being labeled a grifter or double dipper etc.). In addition, “selling yourself” can be a skill that many people don’t feel comfortable with.

There is a social cost to taking any sort of risk to do anything of value and it’s a feature, not a bug.

As for selling yourself, I think it may be a fair point for highly technical products, but for everything else, the inability to sell itself is an argument against the proposal.

b) OpenGov already is “busy” to the point where it’s difficult to evaluate each proposal to the degree that voters have a hard time to keep up, give feedback and consider proposals in a measured way. And the people evaluating/commenting may be vocal beyond their voting weight (conversely large voters may not express feedback at all).

Is this still true for most proposals after the Decentralized Voices program?

c) Retroactive payment represents a time/financial risk for the actor. Many hungry teams/individuals may not be able to bootstrap this way unless they have income from another source.

Again, reward being tied to risk is a feature, not a bug. There are lower risk, lower reward ways of contributing to the ecosystem by starting small or joining existing teams.

d) As someone who has observed opengov closely the past year, the standards of what gets funded changes quite a bit every 1-2 months. This makes it hard to set expectations and provides less certainty to proposers, especially those who are building/contributing but don’t have a lot of time to spend in governance.

When you say “standards of what gets funded” - do you mean that the needs of the ecosystem evolve or something else? If it’s the former, it seems like a good thing.

[batman]

So what is your take on these questions?

One question I’d add to the top is “Why are we even doing this anyway?”

@shawntabrizi

One part of this is realizing that not everyone values Web3, and we might be very early for many. Unfortunately this is true for the majority of first world nations. But there are many places where there are problems we can solve for them TODAY.

Like you mentioned above, not everyone would find a fit with the values that we’re working with, but the values themselves should perhaps be the first thing to make clear.

Where do you strongly agree?
Strongly agree with results based funding.

Where do you strongly disagree?
I don’t strongly disagree with anything mentioned, but I do think that it would be valuable for us as an ecosystem to simplify our answers to these questions to the point where an 11 y/o can understand it.

Web3, blockspace, etc. are all loaded terms which aren’t used in everyday conversation (or even in the lingo of most devs for that matter).

What are the actions we should take given these answers?

Simplify our answers and developer/user experience and education.

What would be your answers to these questions?

What are we?

We are nerds who like freedom without authority or anarchy.

What is our product?

I think we have 2:

1. OpenGov: A transparently governed jurisdiction in the cyberspace - where rules are decided by stakeholders not by whoever controls physical violence.

2. Polkadot: A privacy-first, permissionless, cloud compute platform where you can host your applications without the fear of being censored, even under adversarial conditions.

Where are we heading?

Same as what Shawn wrote. I like to think of it as “Backend for the metaverse”.

Where do we want to allocate funds?

Instead of listing categories for allocation, I’ll list desired outcomes that we should allocate towards with categories listed under them:

1. Reduce friction for building stuff on polkadot
   • developer tools and templates
   • developer education (docs with code examples for common use cases, tutorials, in person hackathons and initiatives like pba)
   • an ecosystem todolist like the one mentioned in Basti’s post below

Searching: Curator for a List of Ecosystem Tasks

Hey, I’m writing this as a member of the ecosystem, a member of the Fellowship and not as a member of Parity. The reason for this post is that we need a list of ecosystem tasks. A list of items that the ecosystem wants to have done that will ultimately improve the ecosystem. We already have multiple sources for these tasks, like the Wish for Change track, builders requesting certain features, bounties already having a list of tasks, surveys in the ecosystem bringing up things to improve etc. S…

2. Better UIs for everything - no one likes ugly, period.
   • especially needed for governance and I believe that the community’s stance with only supporting existing players in this specific category has become extremely unhealthy

@shawntabrizi

The Polkadot developer community has always been good at producing high quality code, but not so good at educating others to be high quality coders producing high quality UIs

I think the spends on brand awareness would only make sense AFTER we’ve achieved a developer and user experience that is at least at par if not better than what Ethereum and Solana currently offer.

In the meantime, I think education and advocacy are good places to allocate funds to.

[replghost]

Hey!

@batman

There is a social cost to taking any sort of risk to do anything of value and it’s a feature, not a bug.

I think maybe I wasn’t being clear enough with the way I put things. I’m not trying to say any of these things are good or bad - it’s neither a feature nor a bug. It’s a very valid opinion to say that the social cost is a good thing, and I can see many reasons why it is so. It’s just as important to understand the deficiencies of such a setup, because that may work against the larger goals.

It’s more that we need to understand how the system works in practice to see how we can adjust for different behaviors and outcomes, so that we can iterate towards a better system.

Are we doing well enough today to get to the following outcome:

@shawntabrizi

Polkadot should be a place where people can find success for themselves. This attitude of a “gold rush”, like when people build a startup in Silicon Valley is good. It attracts high quality builders, high quality products, and as a result high quality users. We must show the world that Polkadot will reward impactful results. That you can still become a DOT whale even if you missed on the ICO. That Polkadot can be a place for you to fund your work, build a business, and change the world. We must reward handsomely, and let the market decide the winners. Not use our resources to keep projects/ideas on life support.

Probably not, so we should figure out where to adjust.

@batman

Is this still true for most proposals after the Decentralized Voices program?

Yes, very much so

@batman

Again, reward being tied to risk is a feature, not a bug. There are lower risk, lower reward ways of contributing to the ecosystem by starting small or joining existing teams.

I agree, there are many ways to get involved. But again, I’m not talking about whether one way is a “feature” or a “bug” - instead, are we (Polkadot) getting the results out of the system that we want today (status quo)? If the system is ok today, then no changes are needed. Alternatively, maybe we just need education or encouragement for people to contribute more. Perhaps we need to do a deeper dive into why people are or are not contributing more. Whatever path we go down, risk being tied to reward should still be the case.

@batman

When you say “standards of what gets funded” - do you mean that the needs of the ecosystem evolve or something else? If it’s the former, it seems like a good thing.

I don’t mean the “needs of the ecosystem” as there is no way to get consensus on that at the present. I just mean factors such as the level of detail/specification required in proposals, the hourly rates, the commitment to open source, the focus on hourly-based actions vs impact.