Transistor Decentralized Voices Candidacy + Public Delegation Campaign

Transistor is applying to be a delegate in the second cohort of the Decentralized Voices program for Polkadot. We will also begin accepting delegations from the DOT-holding public at large as a part of this ongoing initiative to balance the voices in OpenGov.

Our voting philosophy is straightforward: we will evaluate all treasury proposals by applying one overarching principle – will this proposal effectively and efficiently help raise the economic value of the Polkadot ecosystem through metrics focused on adoption over hype generation?

This means breaking some of the assumptions that have led the Polkadot ecosystem to this point in its evolution.

This ecosystem must reverse the negative skew in perceived viability with many key crypto ecosystem stakeholders: US-based developers and entrepreneurs, investors, media outlets, and retail users. These are relatively small and surprisingly disparate groups that are all persuadable but are not predisposed to respond to the strategies and tactics deployed by the Polkadot ecosystem since its peak valuation in the fall of 2021 when Transistor leadership was directly involved in the positioning and adoption of Polkadot amongst these stakeholder subgroups.

We would also like to formally express our position on some of the emergent ideas around governance in OpenGov.

The most important future contributors to Polkadot’s success by definition have no “skin in the game” as currently argued by some OpenGov participants, making the governance process and Polkadot look like the insular and unwelcoming coin maximalism of old. Our DOT holdings (which some would point to as the only important “skin” in this game) are substantial enough that we would not be susceptible to horse trading to support our livelihoods from the treasury by extracting what amounts to bribes from proposers in exchange for our vote, a significant problem we have observed in several referenda. At the same time, our DOT holdings are not so large that our interests could ever be misaligned with the community’s goal of seeing Polkadot sustainably appreciated over the long term, not just for a brief pump during this bull market.

Similarly, the idea that Decentralized Voice’s delegates must have an open and long-standing public voting record in Polkadot governance willfully ignores the nuance in how this system has been deployed, especially when an individual’s private assets are potentially at risk when publicly revealing a wallet address. We are strong supporters of Project Glove, and have delegated voting power to Ivy since its inception. We are fully doxxed as individuals – our true names, work experience, and education – factors we believe matter much more when assessing the qualities of Decentralized Voices delegates.

We reject oversimplified tropes and rely on Transistor leadership’s deep experience-based understanding of politics, philosophy, and lobbying in private and public governance structures when making decisions on OpenGov referenda.

As engaged participants will remember, we submitted a treasury proposal for a Polkadot NYC “HQ” just before the program and first set of DV delegates were announced. Through that process, our team gained valuable insights into how the treasury proposal process under the DV program has changed, its pitfalls, and potential improvements we would be able to help implement.

To apply these core principles in assessing proposals, our assessment protocol will involve:

  1. Thorough due diligence on the proposer:

    • Assessing their background, experience, and skill set
    • Analyzing their motivation for the proposal
    • Identifying any potential moral hazard pitfalls
    • Activating our deep network to identify key risk factors with a proposer
  2. Analyzing the proposal using a rigorous analytical framework comprising:

    • ROI and ROIC
    • Opportunity cost
    • Relative return vs. absolute return (recognizing that sometimes quantity has its own quality)
    • Economic and business impact on Polkadot
    • Comparable analysis
  3. Assessing the proposal using key quantitative and qualitative factors:

    • Fair and relevant KPIs and milestones
    • Spending plan based on the region focus, vertical, and business model

For the Transistor team, the only thing that matters is that Polkadot appreciates through a sustainable and effective process.

We don’t want gimmicks or desperate maneuvers that “throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.” We will use our deep understanding of economic value creation, tech-driven business models, crypto tokenomics, and go-to-market strategies combined with efficient capital allocation as a DV delegate to support proposals that will help appreciate Polkadot’s valuation and oppose those that will, at best, waste money and, at worst, enable further grifts exploiting the OpenGov process.

If selected, we will open our DV delegate role to others in the ecosystem whose priorities align with ours, allowing us to function as a DAO. We have no egos, no ulterior motives, no desire for intellectual validation, no insecurities to project, and no axes to grind. We simply want Polkadot to succeed.


Your proposal identifies a lot of what Im looking for. These items you outlined are high on my list.

  • Analyzing their motivation for the proposal
  • Identifying any potential moral hazard pitfalls
  • Activating our deep network to identify key risk factors with a proposer

Additionally I appreciated keeping the “egos” at the door sentiment. I would really like to see your participation this term!