Polkadot exposes another "discrimination" scandal: multiple Asian projects collectively accuse unfair treatment

Author: Azuma, Odaily Planet Daily

Today, the news about Polkadot's "spending $87 million in six months, with the treasury only able to last for another two years" has sparked widespread discussion within the community.

As community sentiment intensifies, many Asian background projects, including Manta Network, DIN (formerly Web3 Go), and Oneblock +, have voiced their concerns, pointing out the serious political struggles and discrimination within the Polkadot ecosystem. Asian projects have long suffered from unfair treatment, with funding applications repeatedly thwarted, while some high-value and vague applications from other regions pass easily, indirectly leading to the forced outflow of many high-quality projects.

The following is a summary based on the statements from various parties:

Manta Network: Polkadot is toxic, run away!

Today at 17:18, Manta Network co-founder Victor Ji posted on X:

As the founder of the project with the highest TVL and market cap / fully diluted market cap (excluding DOT) in the former Polkadot ecosystem, I must say we completely do not want to engage with the Polkadot ecosystem and its team anymore.

This ecosystem is highly toxic and offers no real value to Web3; it simply does not care about users or adoption rates. We are too busy to reveal the many discriminatory facts we, as Asian founders, have suffered in this ecosystem (which is a shared feeling among all Asian founders).

The Polkadot team is incompetent and has not truly achieved decentralization. If they were willing to put in some meaningful effort to support ecosystem builders, we wouldn't 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 there is no roadmap; we are now fully focused on Manta Pacific because the entire Polkadot ecosystem is basically dead.

Regarding the accusations of the Polkadot team discriminating against Asian developers, you can compare how much funding European/American projects receive versus Asian projects to understand.

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

Today at 18:09, DIN (formerly a data analysis platform for the Polkadot ecosystem, Web3 Go) founder Harold posted on X:

I agree with Manta Network co-founder Victor Ji's viewpoint; as an Asian-led project, it is quite difficult to build within the Polkadot ecosystem.

In the Polkadot ecosystem, you have to face and solve many additional issues, such as politics, relationships, and small circles. I remember the Web3 event held in Hong Kong in 2023; 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 that again. Meanwhile, I see many projects from Europe and the US easily receiving 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 are still impressive, we are gradually distancing ourselves from Polkadot.

The deeper the love, the harsher the criticism.

PolkaWorld: Drive away the scammers looking to fleece us

Today at 21:14, the Chinese community of Polkadot, PolkaWorld, posted on X:

PolkaWorld opposed most of the so-called proposals to increase Polkadot's exposure during its term as a DV (governance voting delegate) in the first half of the year. Polkadot currently does not lack so-called advertising exposure; money should not be spent on advertising exposure that yields no conversion. Any advertising and exposure should be based on products; otherwise, it is ineffective exposure and wasteful spending.

PolkaWorld added that there is an essential problem in the Polkadot ecosystem that has not been solved—how to combat whales? Especially when the intentions of whales do not align with the interests of the entire community, what can the community do… Why can a proposal with over a million dollars and no detailed explanation, transparency in budget, and financial reports pass despite strong community opposition? Why does a proposal requesting tens of thousands of dollars, which would greatly benefit the community, face tens of millions in opposition? How many dramatic proposals have passed on Polkadot in the past six months?

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 emerges can it attract a large number of users to the Polkadot ecosystem and keep them there.

Finally, we want to call on all DOT holders; the Polkadot community should no longer support more advertising exposure proposals, including any collaborations/sponsorships for sports events, 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 our money on the exposure of these products!

Hold steady, DOT holders; we can win! The premise is to first get rid of those scammers looking to fleece us!

Oneblock +: Uncomprehending 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 on OpenGov, hoping to bring the Polkadot hackathon to Singapore and Bangkok in the second half of 2024. The fund allocation is for hosting, prizes, and organizing the Polkadot hackathon in Singapore and Bangkok in 2024. Oneblock + stated that its costs are transparent: 30% for operational expenses and 70% as rewards for winning teams.

However, its proposal faced opposition from many node representatives and large DOT holders, arguing that the rewards set for the winning development teams were too high. The fact is that Oneblock +’s proposal costs are lower than those of other hackathon organizers, and the high rewards aim to attract more developers to join the Polkadot ecosystem and continue developing, rather than wasting money on event organization.

As the only Polkadot DV representative from China, Oneblock + does not accept the rejection of its proposal on the grounds of "giving developers excessive rewards." The rewards for hackathons like Solana and Ton exceed $500,000.

Odaily's Personal Experience

In addition to the statements from the aforementioned institutions, Odaily itself has also experienced setbacks in proposals within the Polkadot ecosystem.

As one of the few Chinese media outlets that have long followed and reported on the Polkadot ecosystem and organized multiple events, in February of this year, after communicating with the Polkadot team, we submitted a proposal on market promotion to the Polkadot governance system OpenGov based on their needs. The proposal outlined Odaily's long-standing proactive reporting support for Polkadot and future content and event support plans, with a requested amount of 10,458 DOT, approximately $80,000 at the time (now it has dropped to $64,000).

The proposal received support from 28.3 million DOT votes, primarily from the Chinese community, and the Polkadot Chinese community also described Odaily's years of contributions on the website. However, just before the voting was about to close, a large number of opposing votes appeared, slightly exceeding the supporting votes (over 32 million in opposition).

Insiders in the community revealed that most of the opposing votes came from "large holders and nodes from Europe," who "do not understand the Chinese community." We attempted to communicate through official channels but received no feedback, ultimately leading to an unresolved situation.

With the recent disclosure of Polkadot's financial report, we saw that the Polkadot treasury preferred to spend $53,000 on a moving logo on CoinGecko (which is time-limited… it seems more was spent on CoinMarketCap); $200,000 to spray a logo on a private jet in Europe to enhance Polkadot's exposure among high-net-worth individuals; $1.6 million to hold a conference that only served croissants; and more real money spent on inexplicably sponsoring various sports activities with no conversion…

In just a few years, we have witnessed Polkadot's journey from a top-tier project to its current state. The spiritual leader is indifferent to worldly affairs, the team is caught up in political struggles, and all the excellent Chinese professionals from the Web3 Foundation and Parity have left. Once high-quality projects have successively departed, and Chinese builders and once-ambitious large holders have left in disappointment…

What a pity for a good game, which has resulted in such a situation.