To the Polkadot Community: A Final Word from a Five-Year Holder

My post was locked without explanation.

Perhaps that, in itself, perfectly captures where the Polkadot community stands today—we don’t need more cheerleading. We need voices willing to tell uncomfortable truths.

On Love and Disappointment

My attachment to Polkadot runs deep. Five years of holding wasn’t blind faith—I genuinely believed in what this project could become. But it’s precisely because I care that watching this decline hurts so much: Polkadot is being left behind by the market, and the community’s response is to silence dissent rather than confront reality.

“Shooting the messenger instead of addressing the message”—this approach stings far worse than any market downturn.

On Reality and Opportunity

Has Polkadot been left behind? The data and ecosystem activity suggest yes. But here’s the thing—it doesn’t have to be permanent. First, though, we need to actually acknowledge what’s happening.

Instead, what do we see?

  • PerpDEX is booming, yet Polkadot has zero presence
  • Ecosystem development remains insular, completely out of touch with market shifts
  • Marketing dollars continue flowing to football sponsorships that mean nothing to Web3 users
  • Official channels pump out substance-free content day after day

This isn’t just slow adaptation—it’s a complete loss of market awareness.

Final Thoughts

I’m not writing this to vent. I’m writing this hoping someone might actually listen. Healthy communities make room for criticism. Projects with a future face their problems head-on.

But if there’s no longer space for honest conversation, then there’s nothing left to say.

This is my last post in the Polkadot community. Not because I’m dumping my bags, but because I’m done expecting this community to change.

I hope one day Polkadot proves that today’s critics were wrong.

2 Likes

I came across last year’s post warning Polkadot’s state. If you really check, little has changed.

And now we have the added problem of censorship from those people who are supposed to lead Polkadot to success.

I feel fortunate that I have not been holding stake in Polkadot for a long time, and I’m no longer involved in Polkadot.

I’ll of course continue to follow Polkadot, but perhaps only its technology (it has destroyed some of them already, unfortunately, after its pivot back to EVM), and use them like Cardano and Bittensor did.

Sometimes it’s important to make a decision to leave.

There are a bunch of things coming but certain organizations are super top secret. I don’t agree with it, I’ve told people that it’s harmful, but it is what it is.

The biggest issues, IMO, that polkadot faces stem from it being European based. Most of the core issues that people have are problems that come from modern EU culture. When the US split off, it split off an older EU culture and retained those older values. Parity and W3F should be relocated to the US.

Many people that I deal with are the human equivalent of attached bottle caps. Plus, Adderall is legal here. Get 'er done.

2 Likes

I also know a little bit but to be honest, I don’t think any would fundamentally change the situation.

Also, when you launch the project, you’ll have to open source it anyway (unless, of course, if you want to stop being “Web3”). Cardano’s partner chain as well as Bittensor has showed us that this small amount of time-to-market doesn’t matter at all. And you lose those people who came to Polkadot for the tech (because for the majority of time things aren’t open source any more).

It might be different stuff because if what I’m looking forward to comes, opinions on polkadot would be irrelevant only revenue would matter. You’re typically more on the engineering side and I’m typically more on the business side.

If you didn’t sign a NDA we would be of course happy to know more details. It would be interested to know whose revenue we’re talking about (is it revenue of actual Polkadot or just a single company). Mythos has given us an example that revenue of a single company (or a parachain) does not directly translate to Polkadot adoption. It’s the ecosystem that matters. Ethereum L2s had the same problem but at least they’re indirectly building the ecosystem. With Polkadot pivoting to EVM it’s rather destroying its own ecosystem.

1 Like

Things that I’ve been talking about here and elsewhere in the past that would lead to direct protocol revenue. A whole suite of products and services that are directly marketable and can compete on price and quality rather than on “blockchain enabledness(??)”. I still don’t fully know myself. I’ve been told to calm down and that it’s coming.

I’ve talked to enough of the newer guys that those who need to “get it”, “get it” – I think (hope?). The whole secrecy thing definitely does everyone a disservice because it’s not possible to really debate or discuss. You have to just shout loudly into a void and hope that the right people will listen. Waggle dancing :joy:. It makes it impossible to align from a community perspective because you have to make an educated guess as to what is happening, what may happen, and what will happen at any point in time.

I really don’t get it. There are things you know you know, there are things you know you don’t know, and there are things that you don’t know that you don’t know. This isn’t a hard concept for people to understand. Investing 101.

1 Like

We probably should move the discussion elsewhere, but on this, I’ve really learned to only trust my eyes. People promise a lot of things and use a lot of fancy words. It may still be something but it’s usually not up to the expectation.

For example, for PoP, I’ve actually had a chance to see the code in the earlier days. For NDA reasons I won’t talk anything about that but only refer to the public information. From what is publicly known, I still don’t see anything fundamentally innovative than what has been described. With Worldcoin already out there, you probably need something fundamentally new to even have a chance. If so, we should probably already see a new paper coming out from W3F or something. But so far, all the public product information is still the same old thing, with the same old semantics. I think there are some community members with similar sentiment, as can be seen from the recent referendum. I’ve never seen anyone from Parity answering any of the concerns, though. Of course, I would hope one day Gavin gives us surprises and proves me wrong, but until then, I only trust my eyes.

Quick observation about these 2 points.

1/ PERP DEX

  • We had beamswap on Moonbeam, which never really took off despite Moonbeam Treasury incentives.
  • Hydration is planning to launch their own PERP DEX.
    See their sub0 keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eatPndYCXOY

Perp DEX is not something new, Hyperliquid success is also due to their TGE and airdrop success. Because on the tech side, there is nothing spectacular. It’s centralized.
Perp Dex narrative has already faded like any other crypto narrative.

Why this protocol is successful and this one is not, it’s crypto, there is usually no rationality about it in most of cases.
And PERP DEX won’t be a major game changer for the ecosystem, the ecosystem has never been a DeFi ecosystem by design. It’s not built for DeFi only (compared to some other eco).

If you take prediction markets, Zeitgeist existed way before Polymarket.
So it’s not just who make the 1st move on a given narrative, it’s a combination of many factors.

2/ Marketing Dollars
You take the example of football sponsorships (it could have been Conor Daly i guess), don’t forget these sponsorships were made during the MB 1.0 timeframe (Giotto’s policy being brand awareness before all). I think the point is not valid anymore.

Has Conor Daly sponsorship been reconducted since ?
No.
Will IMFC sponsorship be reconducted?
No, (and the ref for the fan app was NAYed)

So here you take an example which is even not applicable anymore to the current state of Marketing (MB 2.0) or community mood. Such sponsorships have now clearly 0 chance to happen for various reasons (ROI, DOT price, strategy, etc etc…).

On a positive note, vbrick was brought to ecosystem thanks to the Conor Daly sponsorship.

We can all disagree with the different marketing strategies we had in the eco, but it’s not marketing who sank the DOT price.
Marketing is just a drop in the ocean of DOT being created and sold by validators/nominators as a reminder, benefiting from the (insane) 2 digits yield rate.
Validators + nominators = 85% share of inflation
Treasury = 15%

The main issue for a very long time was just the tokenomics design (high inflation, infinite supply), and they have been hopefully changed or cut by community decisions, even if still not implemented (deadline March).

It’s sad, because as shown above, community decisions have started to change the face of the eco, tokenomics being the best example of it. DVs have been much more conservative too.

Cheers :innocent:

1 Like

I’ve argued that @jonas ’ DAP proposal is effectively a Perpetual DEX Vault managed by a protocol-level algorithm. If we map the components, the isomorphism becomes clear:

  • The Vault → the Allocation Pool (buffering volatility)
  • Funding Rate → the smoothing parameter (β), which adjusts outflows to preserve solvency
  • Insurance Fund → the underlying Inflation + Treasury creating the “security budget”
Perpetual DEX Component DAP Component (Jonas’ Proposal) The Mechanism
Liquidity Vault (GLP/ALP) The Allocation Pool A buffer of assets (DOT) used to absorb shocks between inflow (revenue) and outflow (spending/rewards).
Funding Rate / Rebalancing Smoothing Parameter (ദ) A variable rate that adjusts to balance the “inventory.” In a Perp Dex, the funding rate penalizes the heavy side to force equilibrium. In DAP, ദ adjusts the “spend” to keep the pool solvent over time.
Insurance Fund Treasury / Inflation The backstop. If the Vault (Pool) runs dry due to a “price crash” (revenue drop), the system prints more DOT (inflation) or drains the Treasury to cover the liability.
Traders (Long/Short) Coretime Buyers / Validators The participants extracting value from the Vault.

The Economic Problem with DAP proposal:

However, if by virtue of similarity of the DAP proposal we contrast it with a “Perp DEX”-style architecture it reveals the exact economic trap I warned about in my critique of Jonas’ proposal here:

In a functional Perp DEX (e.g., GMX, Hyperliquid), the Vault is sustainable because external traders pay real fees (via PnL or funding) into the system. There is a purchasing power transfer from the outside world into the Vault.

In the current DAP model, however, we are building a “Perp DEX” where the protocol trades primarily against itself.

We treat blockspace allocation as “revenue,” but if that revenue is sourced from internal rotation (re-staking, treasury swaps, validator churn) — rather than from external market demand (Cambridge Coefficient k) — then the Vault is simply washing volume.

As I mentioned in the DAP thread:

“When a system fails to couple its ‘GDP’ (activity) back to its ‘Reserve Asset’ (DOT) via enforced sinks, the velocity of money becomes infinite, k → 0, and the Cost of Corruption (CoC) collapses.”


If we implement a “Perp DEX” architecture without a Purchasing Power Anchor, then we’re automating the devaluation of the Insurance Fund (i.e., DOT holders). It becomes a sophisticated machine to burn our own equity with no innovation value.

Very well said, and I agree!

Blind isolation, driven by the belief that we’re somehow “special” or above the rest of the space, always ends badly.

Polkadot is special, so what? Keep marching! History shows this clearly: when communities silence criticism and retreat into echo chambers, they stagnate.

Yes, Polkadot is making real technical progress, but technology alone isn’t enough.

What’s worth noting is how inward-looking the ecosystem has become. Perhaps that captures where the community stands today.

We don’t need more cheerleading. We need honesty, market awareness, the courage to drop old vendettas, embrace competition, and react timely to change.

The architecture is strong, the engineering is world-class, and the utility is real. That’s exactly why this conversation matters.

A project with weaker fundamentals wouldn’t even be worth criticizing.

Polkadot doesn’t need to be measured against other projects. Its real benchmark is whether it’s becoming a better version of itself, whether it’s living up to the scale of what it was designed to be.

:100: :100:
This should be painted on the walls!

1 Like