波卡又曝歧視醜聞：多個亞洲項目集體指責不公平待遇

原創| Odaily星球日報（ @Odaily中國 )

作者：阿祖瑪（ @azuma.eth )

Today, the news that Polkadot expended 87 million US dollars in half a year and its treasury was only enough to last another 2 years sparked widespread discussion within the community.

As community sentiment intensified, many Asian-based projects, including Manta Network, DIN (formerly Web3 Go), and Oneblock+, spoke out one after another, pointing out that there are serious political struggles and discrimination within the Polkadot ecosystem. Asian projects have long suffered from unfair attitudes, while high-cost proposals from some other regions were easily passed, indirectly leading to the forced outflow of many high-quality projects.

The following is Odaily’s summary based on the opinions of various parties (including Odaily’s own experience in applying for Polkadot funding proposal).

Manta Network: Polkadot is toxic, run!

At 17:18 today, Manta Network co-founder Victor Ji posted on X:

As the founder of the largest (non-DOT) project in the former Polkadot ecosystem by TVL and market cap/fully diluted market cap, I have to say that we have absolutely no desire to engage with the Polkadot ecosystem and its team anymore.
This ecosystem is highly toxic, has no real value to Web3, and is not focused on users or adoption. We are too busy to reveal the many discriminations we as Asian founders experience in this ecosystem (a sentiment shared by all Asian founders).

The Polkadot team is incompetent and not truly decentralized. If they were willing to put in some meaningful effort to support ecosystem builders, we wouldnt be as disappointed as we are now. Many community members have asked us about the roadmap for our Atlantic (Polkadot parachain) project, and I would say there is no roadmap, and we are now fully focused on Manta Pacific because the entire Polkadot ecosystem is basically dead.

Regarding the accusation that the Polkadot team discriminates against Asian developers, you can understand it by comparing how much funding European/American projects have received compared to Asian projects.

DIN (formerly Web3 Go): The deeper the love, the greater the disappointment

At 18:09 today, Harold YuX, the founder of DIN (formerly the Polkadot ecological data analysis platform Web3 Go), posted:

I agree with the view of Victor Ji, co-founder of Manta Network, that as an Asian-led project, it is quite difficult 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. Polkadot did not hold any official events at the 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 dont want to go through it again. But at the same time, I saw many projects from Europe and the United States easily get hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in funding, which is very unfair.

Because of this, although the technology and vision of the Polkadot ecosystem remain impressive, we are gradually moving away from Polkadot.

The deeper the love, the harsher the criticism.

PolkaWorld: Get rid of the scammers

At 21:14 today, PolkaWorld, the Chinese community of Polkadot, posted a message on X saying:

PolkaWorld opposed most of the so-called proposals to increase Polkadot’s exposure during its time as a DV (governance voting delegate) in the first half of the year. Polkadot currently does not lack so-called advertising exposure, and money should not be spent on advertising exposure that does not have any conversion. Any advertising and exposure should be based on the product, otherwise it will be invalid exposure and invalid expenditure.

PolkaWorld added that there is an essential problem that has not been solved in the Polkadot ecosystem at present – how to fight against whales? Especially when the intentions of whales are inconsistent with the interests of the entire community, what can the community do… Why can a proposal worth millions of dollars without any detailed description, transparent budget and financial report be passed despite strong opposition from the community? Why does a proposal that applies for tens of thousands of dollars and is very helpful to the community have to be opposed by tens of millions? In the past six months, how many drama proposals have been passed on Polkadot?
Currently, what the Polkadot community needs most is: 1. Empower teams that have already built great products, give them 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 stay in the Polkadot ecosystem.

Finally, we want to call on all DOT hoders that the Polkadot community should not support more advertising exposure proposals, including any cooperation/sponsorship of sports events, advertising, or even sponsoring concerts? ? Cooperation with KOLs? ? Wait, this is meaningless! Lets focus on how to cultivate powerful ecological applications and let us spend money on the exposure of these products!

Keep DOT holders stable, we can win! The prerequisite is to get rid of those scammers who are taking advantage of us first!

Oneblock+: I don’t understand Polkadot’s refusal to “give developers too high rewards”

在 21:23 today, the Polkadot community and DV Oneblock+ posted on X:

Recently, two Polkadot hackathon proposals for the Asia-Pacific region in 2024 were applied for on OpenGov, hoping to bring Polkadot hackathons to Singapore and Bangkok in the second half of 2024. Funds will be allocated for hosting, prizes, and organizing Polkadot hackathons in Singapore and Bangkok in 2024. Oneblock+ claims that its costs are transparent: 30% is used for operating expenses and 70% as rewards for the winning team.

However, its proposal was opposed by many node representatives and DOT big holders on the grounds that the bonus they set for the winning development team was too high. The fact is that Oneblock+s proposal fee is lower than that of other hackathon organizers, and the high bonus is to attract more developers to join the Polkadot ecosystem and continue development, rather than wasting money on event organization.

As the only Polkadot DV representative in China, Oneblock+ does not accept the reason of giving developers too high rewards to reject proposals. The bonuses for hackathons such as Solana and Ton exceeded $500,000.

Odaily personal experience

In addition to the above-mentioned institutions speaking out, Odaily itself has also experienced setbacks in its Polkadot ecosystem proposals.

As one of the few Chinese media that has been following up on the Polkadot ecosystem for a long time and organizing many events, in February this year, after communicating with the Polkadot team , we submitted a proposal on market promotion on the Polkadot governance system OpenGov based on their needs. The proposal outlined Odailys long-term proactive follow-up support for Polkadot, as well as future content and event support plans. The application amount was 10,458 DOT, which was approximately US$80,000 at the price at the time (now it has fallen to US$64,000).

The proposal was supported by 28.3 million DOT votes, mainly in the Chinese community. The Polkadot Chinese community also described Odailys contributions over the years on the website. However, when the voting was about to close, a large number of votes against it appeared, just slightly exceeding the number of votes in favor (more than 32 million against).

According to an insider in the community, most of those who voted against the project were “big players and nodes in Europe” who “did not understand the Chinese area.” We tried to communicate with the official team but received no feedback, so the project was ultimately abandoned.

With the recent disclosure of Polkadot’s financial report, we can see that Polkadot’s treasury is more willing to spend $53,000 to make an animated logo on CoinGecko (limited time only… CoinMarketCap seems to have spent more); $200,000 to spray an icon on a European private jet to increase Polkadot’s exposure to high-net-worth groups; $1.6 million to hold a conference where only croissants are served; and even more real money to inexplicably sponsor various sports activities that have no conversions…

In just a few years, we have witnessed step by step how Polkadot has gone from a king-level project to its current state. The spiritual leader is indifferent to worldly affairs, the team members are engaged in politics, all the outstanding Chinese practitioners of Web3 Foundation and Parity have resigned, the once high-quality projects have left one after another, and the Chinese builders and the once ambitious big investors have left in disappointment…

Its a pity that such a good game ended up like this.

This article is sourced from the internet: Polkadot exposed another discrimination scandal: several Asian projects collectively accused unfair treatment

相關：Bitwise：$20兆市場，AI+加密長期機會

撰文：Juan Leon，Bitwise 加密貨幣分析師 編譯：Luffy，Foresight News 我最近參加了在奧斯汀舉行的 Consensus，這是世界上最大的加密貨幣會議之一。在這場超過 15,000 名與會者的活動中，無數行業專家討論了從代幣化和監管到貨幣政策和比特幣 ETF 等廣泛的話題。但如果我必須指出這次會議的最大收穫，那就是：人工智慧 (AI) 和加密貨幣的交叉點比人們想像的更有前景。到2030年，這兩個產業將為全球GDP貢獻1TP10-20兆。這不會在一夜之間發生，但我們已經看到了它巨大潛力的開始。比特幣挖礦和人工智慧：新興的合作夥伴關係您無疑聽說過最近的人工智慧熱潮，它推動了 Nvidia（...