-
Inflation rate is higher than FIAT, even with staking rewards.
-
Unlock period is too high.
-
OpenGov costs are too expensive for user based inputs through proposals.
-
Validators are put first instead of users and token holders, even though security isn’t an issue.
-
New cores are deployed even though old cores aren’t used in full. Similiar dilution like token supply.
-
Minimal commission rate were put in place.
-
Burn rates are too low, treasury inflows (not burned) too high.
-
Way too less control in treasury spending, too many grifts, almost no retroactive control measures and no agency for proposers to actually deliver as promised.
-
Ideology before economy, even though steady downtrend.
-
Reputation and trust also in downtrend since years.
When do these existencial threats to the ecosystem get adressed? Maybe when the tokens hit a new ATL? I’m excited to hear your opinion.
Oh, and 11. Too much censorship. The moddies here sent me in a unvoluntary vacation of two weaks for my last posts. Since then, we almost hit rock bottom…
6 Likes
Couldn’t agree more. I was also banned for 3 weeks for “to combative”. Are you kidding me? I invested and held DOT for years only to be blocked for talking about it? We need new staff, an entire overhaul.
Calling yourself the chain of anti censorship and then censoring your holders for talking about their personal experience supporting it for multiple years is beyond ridiculous.
2 Likes
Real question is why do paid faceless mods get to decide what DOT holders talk about. Doesn’t sound decentralized to me.
I’m guessing I’m on track to be banned again for being “to combative” can’t question or criticize anything just got to be max happy all the time like the Kaito bots.
God forbid someone looks at Polkadots delivery not promises.
There is a deep structural conflict within the Polkadot ecosystem between DOT holders and the network’s governance teams. On one side, the founders and developers often rooted in a “cyber-cypher” mindset and still dominant in decision-making bodies champion the idea of building a universal, freely accessible protocol, convinced that technical utility and long-term interoperability will create the network’s true value. Much like Bitcoin, whose price has been driven more by perceived utility than by immediate use cases, they believe that Polkadot’s durability and sovereignty justify the initial investment.
On the other side, investors whether individuals, venture-capital funds, or validators staking their DOTabove all expect a return on investment: price appreciation and attractive staking yields. This tension pits the ideological vision (open-source, barrier-free, aligned with the Web3 mission) against short and medium-term financial demands. That’s why development has felt “frozen” for years and why we keep seeing all-time lows. We need balance and an economic recalibration. Still, I am confident in Polkadot’s ability to weather the shifts in mindset that will be necessary hopefully by 2028.
This proposal Polkassembly - Referendum #1629 is an economic disgrace, primarily aimed at bypassing the entity that acquired a significant amount of DOT cores and at reducing the cost of the ecosystem’s only product: coretime.
1 Like
