Ref 1542 for 5MM DOT is nationalizing Hydration … instead of Polkadot Hub. As of this moment, its passing handily, and it will support new integrations with 1542-supported TVL rather than Polkadot Hub TVL. Having TWO refs of 1542, one for Hydration and another one for Polkadot Hub (which was never even proposed!) would be just insane!
This WFC proposes to finish nationalization and recognizes the same thing that its proponents recognize: out of 10+ defi centric parachains, Hydration outdid them all. Its better to have 1 dominant defi chain than 2 (Hydration + Polkadot Hub) or more (all the other less successful ones, many of whom “defected”). I’m not sure what Hydration’s “healthy competition” is – who are you even talking about? No new entrant will do better. I believe they have outdone the competition, including Polkadot Hub itself. Waiting 2+ years for a new team to do things in a Coreplay centric way is perhaps a nice idea but no one will integrate with that team’s work… they will integrate with Hydration+Polkadot Hub, and be even more likely to integrate with Polkadot with Hydration as a Defi system chain.
Ref 1542 is for 5MM DOT for short term incentives. There is also massive execution risk there, that Velocity Labs doesn’t get the integrations expected. This proposal aims for 2x the amount for more efficient ROI. With probability approaching 1, one year later, there will be a follow up for 1542 for a similar or greater amount =) with basically all the same arguments. By having programmable assets on Hydration (defi) AND Polkadot Hub (staking, goverance) would conclude the business of channel conflict. Polkadot Hub and Hydration dating back to when @joepetrowski presented the Statemint roadmap.
Also, its not that massive when you spread it out over 5-8 quarters. But, yes, its a record setter.
Did you write this with an LLM unaware of OpenGov refs? Prompt ChatGPT with: please read Ref 1542 and its precedessor Ref 561 and try again! =)
To call Treasury supported incentives “organic” is just … false. It was paid for by DOT Tokenholders.
Hydration TVL is growing due to Treasury supported incentives, which flow to a small number of accounts in a power-law distribution.
Take away the incentives/“rented liquidity” and this growth is much slower.
This TVL growth is paid for by OpenGov.
They will play hard to get, as most acquisition targets are wont to do, but in the end, they are amongst Polkadot’s greatest entrepreneurs and I hope the equations will make sense to both DAOs so everyone wins.
There are many other successful parachains (Mythos, energywebx, peaq, etc.) that are executing without strong Treasury dependence. The equations, simply put, do not align as well. Defi to web3 is like Office is to Windows. To treat defi like other verticals is just … devoid of reality.
Concentrating Polkadot liquidity is way smarter than fragmented liquidity. Very obviously strategic! The Polkadot Hub vs Hydration of 2025 channel conflict needs to be settled.
This ref invests heavily in quality talent + Polkadot-centric product development rather than just the top N accounts who hop around between morpho and xyz competitor with ZERO loyalty – its a total joke to call them “users” – any one who thinks this is about user growth has never studied the top N users.
To be effective, this proposal needs to have good incentives for the talent to execute with a high sense of urgency to incorporate revive now, Coreplay/… later and do it all in the name of DOT, and DOT alone.