Frustrations Mount as PolkaWorld and Brushfam Exit Polkadot
In a surprising turn of events, Polkadot community PolkaWorld has officially ceased its operations following Polkadot’s treasury’s rejection of its funding proposal. This decision has ignited a debate within the Polkadot ecosystem about the effectiveness of the new OpenGov governance platform and its impact on long-term contributors.
The announcement via PolkaWorld’s official communication channels highlighted concerns about treasury management under Polkadot’s recently introduced OpenGov platform. The organisation argued that this new system, which empowers stakeholders to make governance decisions, is driving away many valuable contributors from the Polkadot ecosystem.
📚 PolkaWorld, Founded in June 2019, @polkaworld_org has been around for four years now, is the Polkadot community in China and has gathered more than 50,000 followers
Under the previous governance model, Polkadot had a council elected by DOT token holders. These council members possessed expertise in various domains and played a crucial role in evaluating project proposals. PolkaWorld contends that this approach ensured a more efficient and knowledgeable decision-making process. Reintegrating this council-based model into the current OpenGov system could resolve some ongoing issues.
Markian Ivanichok, the founder of Brushfam, a platform facilitating businesses to onboard onto Polkadot, also voiced his concerns about the current governance system. Ivanichok announced in a Twitter thread that his project would be leaving the Polkadot ecosystem, citing increasing difficulties in securing financing. He expressed his frustration with an ecosystem that believes it “doesn’t care about users, business practices, and marketing its product.”
Polkadot introduced the OpenGov system earlier in the year, aiming to give every DOT token holder a direct say in shaping the platform’s future. With OpenGov, governance decisions are determined through a voting process where token-holders actively participate in deciding the fate of project proposals.
The move towards decentralisation and empowering stakeholders to make crucial decisions is a commendable step in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space. However, the situation with PolkaWorld and Brushfam raises essential questions about the practicality and effectiveness of such systems.
There is a delicate balance to be struck between decentralised decision-making and maintaining the interest and participation of valuable ecosystem contributors. The Polkadot community is now grappling with finding this equilibrium as they witness the departure of long-time contributors like PolkaWorld and Brushfam.
The concerns expressed by these entities should not be dismissed lightly. They highlight the challenges projects face in securing funding and support in an ecosystem where the governance process may not align with their objectives. The blockchain space is highly competitive, and platforms like Polkadot must ensure they remain attractive to projects and developers.
As Polkadot’s community reflects on the departure of PolkaWorld and Brushfam, they must consider whether adjustments are needed to strike a balance between decentralisation and maintaining an ecosystem that nurtures innovation and growth. The lessons learned from these departures could shape the future of governance in Polkadot and similar blockchain ecosystems.
In conclusion, the exit of PolkaWorld and Brushfam from the Polkadot ecosystem is a stark reminder of the challenges that can arise in pursuing decentralisation. While decentralised governance is a noble goal, it must be implemented in a way that continues to support and incentivise valuable contributors. The Polkadot community now faces the task of reevaluating its governance system to ensure its ecosystem’s long-term success and sustainability.
