Original | Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina )_
Author | Azuma ( @azuma.eth )_
Today, the news about Polkadot's "$87 Million Half-Year Expenditure, Treasury Only Enough to Last Another 2 Years" has sparked widespread discussion within the community.
As community emotions intensify, many Asian background projects including Manta Network, DIN (formerly Web3Go), and Oneblock+ have come forward to point out the serious internal political infighting and discrimination within the Polkadot ecosystem. Asian projects have long been subjected to unfair treatment, with some high-budget proposals from other regions easily passing, indirectly leading to the forced outflow of many high-quality projects.
Below is a compilation made by Odaily based on the statements from various parties (including Odaily's own experience in applying for Polkadot funding).
Manta Network: Polkadot is toxic, run away!
Today at 17:18, Victor Ji, co-founder of Manta Network, posted on X:
As the founder of the project with the largest TVL and market value/fully diluted market value (non-DOT) in the former Polkadot ecosystem, I have to say that we no longer want to have any contact with the Polkadot ecosystem and its team.
This ecosystem is highly toxic, with no real value to Web3, and it does not care about users or adoption at all. We are too busy to reveal the many discriminatory facts we, as Asian founders, have suffered in this ecosystem (a sentiment shared by all Asian founders).
The Polkadot team is incompetent and has not truly achieved decentralization. If they are willing to make meaningful efforts to support ecosystem builders, we would not be as disappointed as we are now. Many community members have asked us about the roadmap for our Atlantic (Polkadot parachain) project, and I want to say that there is no roadmap. We are now fully focused on Manta Pacific because the entire Polkadot ecosystem is basically dead.
Regarding the accusations of discrimination against Asian developers by the Polkadot team, you can compare how much funding European/American projects have received compared to Asian projects to understand.
DIN (formerly Web3Go): The deeper the love, the greater the disappointment
Today at 18:09, Harold, founder of DIN (formerly Web3Go), posted on X:
I agree with Victor Ji, co-founder of Manta Network. It is quite difficult for an Asian-led project to build in the Polkadot ecosystem.
In the Polkadot ecosystem, you need to face and solve many additional problems, such as politics, relationships, and cliques. I remember the Web3 event held in Hong Kong in 2023, and Polkadot did not hold any official events at that time, so I applied for a $10,000 grant on behalf of the community. The application process was too painful, and the reporting requirements were too cumbersome. I don't want to go through it again. But at the same time, I see many projects from Europe and the United States easily getting hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in funding, which is very unfair.
As a result, although the technology and vision of the Polkadot ecosystem are still impressive, we are gradually moving away from Polkadot.
PolkaWorld: Drive away the scammers who fleece
Today at 21:14, PolkaWorld, the Chinese community of Polkadot, posted on X:
During the first half of the year, PolkaWorld, as a DV (governance voting delegate), opposed most of the proposals to increase the exposure of Polkadot. Polkadot currently does not lack so-called advertising exposure, and money should not be spent on advertising exposure that has no conversion, any advertising and exposure should be based on products, otherwise it is ineffective exposure and expenditure.
PolkaWorld added that there is a fundamental problem in the Polkadot ecosystem that has not been solved—how to counter whales? Especially when the intentions of the whales do not align with the interests of the entire community, what can the community do… How many drama-filled proposals have been passed on Polkadot in the past half year?
Currently, what the Polkadot community needs most is: 1. Empower teams that have already built great products, provide them with liquidity incentives, and attract users to use these great products; 2. Continuously cultivate and discover new teams, new products, and new applications; 3. Only when a user-friendly unicorn application comes out can it attract a large number of users to the Polkadot ecosystem and keep them in the Polkadot ecosystem.
Finally, we want to appeal to all DOT holders. The Polkadot community should no longer support more advertising exposure proposals, including any sports event cooperation/sponsorship, advertising placements, or even sponsoring concerts?? Collaborating with KOLs??, etc. This is meaningless! Let's focus on how to cultivate strong ecological applications and spend money on the exposure of these products!
Stay steady, DOT holders, we can win! The premise is to get rid of those scammers who fleece!
Oneblock+: Does not understand Polkadot's refusal to "give developers excessive rewards"
Today at 21:23, the Polkadot community and DV Oneblock+ posted on X:
Recently, we applied for two Polkadot hackathon proposals in the Asia-Pacific region in 2024 on OpenGov, hoping to bring the Polkadot hackathon to Singapore and Bangkok in the second half of 2024, with funds allocated for hosting, prizes, and organizing the 2024 Polkadot hackathon in Singapore and Bangkok. Oneblock+ stated that its costs are transparent: 30% for operating expenses and 70% as rewards for the winning teams.
However, their proposal has been opposed by many node representatives and large DOT holders, on the grounds that the rewards set for the winning development teams are too high. The fact is, Oneblock+'s proposal costs less than other hackathon organizers, and the high rewards are intended to attract more developers to join the Polkadot ecosystem and continue development, rather than waste money on event organization.
As the only Polkadot DV representative in China, Oneblock+ does not accept the rejection of the proposal on the grounds of "giving developers excessive rewards." The rewards for hackathons such as Solana and Ton exceed $500,000.
Odaily's Personal Experience
In addition to the statements from the aforementioned organizations, Odaily itself has experienced setbacks in proposing within the Polkadot ecosystem.
As one of the few Chinese media outlets that have been following the Polkadot ecosystem for a long time and have organized multiple events, in February of this year, we submitted a proposal on OpenGov regarding market promotion based on the needs of the Polkadot team. The proposal outlined Odaily's long-standing proactive coverage and support for Polkadot, as well as future content and event support plans, with an application amount of 10,458 DOT, approximately $80,000 at the time (now reduced to $64,000 due to the price drop).
The proposal received support from 28.3 million DOT votes, mainly from the Chinese community, and the Polkadot Chinese community also described Odaily's contributions over the years on their website. However, as the voting deadline approached, a large number of opposing votes appeared, slightly exceeding the supporting votes (over 32 million opposing votes). The high level of participation in this vote
According to insiders in the community, most of the opposing votes were from "large holders and nodes in Europe" who "do not understand the Chinese community." We tried to communicate through official channels but did not receive any feedback, and ultimately had to leave it at that.
With the recent disclosure of Polkadot's financial report, we only now see that the Polkadot treasury is more willing to spend $53,000 on a moving logo on CoinGecko (still limited time…seems to have spent more on CoinMarketCap); spend $200,000 to spray a logo on a private plane in Europe to enhance Polkadot's exposure to high net worth individuals; spend $1.6 million on a conference that only serves croissants; and spend more real money to inexplicably sponsor various sports events with no conversion…
In just a few years, we have witnessed Polkadot's transition from a top-tier project to its current state. The spiritual leader does not care about worldly matters, the team is embroiled in political struggles, and all the outstanding Chinese professionals from Web3 Foundation and Parity have resigned. Once high-quality projects have left one after another, Chinese builders and once ambitious large holders have left in disappointment…
It's a pity for such a good game of chess to end up with this kind of situation.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
