Responsible Governance Due Diligence - Professional Consulting Funding

Polkadot’s success hinges on making informed decisions regarding its tokenomics, marketing, and overall ecosystem development. To ensure optimal outcomes and avoid potential pitfalls, I propose engaging professional consulting services for key strategic initiatives. We could have a small fund that is used to engage in consulting services

Rationale:

  • Tokenomics: A well-designed tokenomics model is crucial for Polkadot’s long-term sustainability and growth. Professional consultants can provide expert analysis and recommendations for:
    • Optimizing token distribution and allocation
    • Developing effective incentive mechanisms
    • Mitigating potential risks associated with tokenomics changes
  • Marketing and Advertising: Reaching the right audience and communicating Polkadot’s value proposition effectively is essential for adoption and growth. Professional consultants can:
    • Develop targeted marketing strategies and campaigns
    • Optimize advertising spend for maximum impact
    • Ensure consistent brand messaging across all channels
  • Other Strategic Initiatives: Beyond tokenomics and marketing, professional consultants can provide valuable insights and guidance for:
    • Ecosystem development and community engagement
    • Regulatory compliance and legal considerations
    • Technological advancements and innovation

Benefits:

  • Reduced Risk: Professional expertise mitigates potential risks associated with major decisions.
  • Improved Outcomes: Informed strategies lead to more effective and successful initiatives.
  • Enhanced Efficiency: Expert guidance streamlines decision-making and resource allocation.
  • Increased Confidence: Working with professionals instills confidence in the project’s direction.

Recommendation:

I recommend allocating a budget for professional consulting services to support key strategic initiatives. This investment will ensure that Polkadot makes informed decisions that drive long-term success and growth.

I understand the idea behind the proposal to hire external consultants for strategic initiatives such as tokenomics, marketing, and even regulatory compliance. However, I believe this approach does not align with Polkadot’s philosophy, which is built on strong decentralized governance. Bringing in external consultants feels more like lobbying, and that’s not the direction we should take.

Major decisions, like those concerning inflation or token distribution, must go through on-chain governance, as they already do. It’s essential to maintain this dynamic, which allows the community to be actively involved in critical decisions. Outsourcing these responsibilities to consultants wouldn’t add real value, as it doesn’t honor our commitment to decentralization.

As for marketing, while it could make sense to involve external experts for specific tasks, it should still be validated through governance. However, I believe the best strategy is to strengthen internal competition within the Polkadot community. This could be achieved by fostering competition among teams for specific projects, with a clear framework and well-defined goals.

One model worth exploring could involve allocating an annual budget, voted on by the community, with semi-annual reviews to adjust goals and ensure funds are being used effectively. This approach would ensure optimized spending management. For example, entities like @LeNexus, based in France and dedicated to growing the Polkadot ecosystem, along with other teams, could submit project proposals around themes collectively and decentralizedly defined. After a rigorous review, the best proposals would be selected.

Regarding voting mechanisms, while we use a classic token-based voting system for broad decisions like the annual budget, it could be worthwhile to consider a “one person, one vote” system for certain projects within specific branches. This would further engage the community and prevent decisions from being overly influenced by large token holders. That said, it is crucial not to unnecessarily complicate the governance model. The aim is to optimize it to best serve our primary objectives: growing the Polkadot ecosystem and driving adoption of our token.

On the regulatory side, there’s no pressing issue. Entities like the Web3 Foundation and Parity are already handling these aspects and are doing an excellent job of ensuring Polkadot remains compliant. We are well positioned here, and there’s no reason for concern. The real focus should be on driving adoption of DOT and other tokens in the Polkadot ecosystem. We need to ensure these tokens find real-world use cases and that their utility is understood by large enterprises so that we can achieve our goals.

Finally, regarding innovation, Polkadot is the most technically advanced ecosystem, and there’s no debate on that. Just as a reminder, Gavin Wood is currently working on the JAM project, which represents a significant innovation. So, innovation is not a concern for us, but rather a driving force that continues to push our ecosystem forward.

2 Likes

I disagree. For instance, no responsible authority would consider 8% inflation a healthy rate. Proposals should be guided by professional expertise. The community, not being professional economists, can’t be expected to make informed decisions about the best inflation rate if the options provided are already too high because those proposing them also lack expertise. It’s like the blind leading the blind, which is a serious mistake. Successful governance relies on consulting professionals.

You’re essentially saying it’s acceptable for people that have a lack of knowledge to propose and vote on harmful policies just because it’s their choice.

We can have polkadots vision of decentralization while having a more educated mindset

My position on this matter is clear, have you read it? My vision is that collectively we can achieve excellent results. However, the kind of approach you advocate is not healthy, but if it’s acceptable, go ahead and make your proposal, and we’ll see.

Have you read Jonas’ inflation analysis? It’s quite responsible and (imo) authoritative, and Jonas by all accounts possesses the requisite bona fides to make such an analysis.

3 Likes

Thanks!

1 Like