Request to the PCF: a public roadmap and a full accounting of community funds for the Polkadot App

1

Title: Request to the PCF: a public roadmap and a full accounting of community funds for the Polkadot App

This is a public request to the Polkadot Community Foundation, made as a DOT holder and as one of the many people whose treasury funds this product.

Let me state the facts first, because they frame the ask.

The Polkadot App was teased at Decoded in 2024. It is built by Novasama, with strategic direction from Parity, published by the PCF, and the PCF holds the IP. Referendum 1573 sent roughly 1.03M USDT from the community treasury to the PCF, of which 748,800 USD, 72.7%, was for software development allocated to Novasama and external contractors. The May 2025 proposal already described the project as behind schedule and declined to give a launch date. It is now mid-2026. The app is still not available to general users, and there is no public roadmap, no published milestones, and no shipping date.

This is a community-owned, community-funded product. That ownership is not symbolic. It carries an obligation in the other direction: the people who pay are owed visibility into what is being built, when, and at what cost. Right now that visibility does not exist in public, and recent exchanges where community members asked for concrete milestones were met with “it is open source” and “ask the PCF,” rather than with answers.

So I am asking the PCF, publicly and on the record, to share the following as soon as reasonably possible:

  1. An official, public roadmap for the Polkadot App, with concrete milestones and target dates for the v1 launch and the features funded under 1573 and 1082.
  2. A full accounting of the funds received from the treasury to date: how much has been spent, on what, and to whom, including the split between Novasama, external contractors, operations, marketing, legal, and tooling, reconciled against the original budget.
  3. The current launch status and a public target date for general availability, with the understanding that dates can move if the reasons are explained.
  4. Clarity on the ongoing structure: who is responsible for delivery, what role Parity and Novasama each play, and how future spend will be proposed and reported.

This is not a criticism of the team. Novasama and the contributors are clearly doing real engineering work, and the people involved have moved the ecosystem forward for years. The point is accountability, not effort. A foundation that carries the word “Community” in its name, funded by community money, should be able to share this kind of information openly, and ideally would do so without being asked.

I am raising this in good faith, and I am happy to help coordinate on format so the roadmap and the numbers can land in one clear, public place. Transparency here is genuinely in everyone’s interest. It protects the team as much as the holders, because a project that reports openly is a project people can defend.

Looking forward to a clear, public answer.

2

should not be hard to answer at all.

3

If things have been done correctly and in good faith, this query should be the easiest thing to answer.

Let’s see.