Introduction

Dear Polkadot and Kusama community members, this is not a dramatic new act, but rather the beginning of some much-needed reflection and discussion.

After attending two summer events (Polkadot Decoded and the Web3 Summit), as well as engaging in numerous conversations both within and outside the community, I felt compelled to write this article. I want to share my concerns and sentiments, as I believe it’s time to sound the alarm within our community.

Polkadot is like Cinderella, and the clock has struck midnight. It’s time for us to wake up.

Most of you are likely aware of many of the issues I’m about to raise. However, I believe these problems have not been adequately addressed. We, as a community, seem to be sweeping these challenges under the rug, avoiding discussions about what truly matters.

At times, OpenGov has been more of a distraction, as its drama pales in comparison to the real issues we face. If you take a step outside the Polkadot bubble, you’ll see that compared to our competitors, Polkadot is not in the best shape. This is the reality.

We’re probably not alone in this situation—Cosmos or Cardano (or other projects) might be facing similar challenges.

Note: The opinions expressed here are my own as a DOT holder and Polkadot enthusiast, and are not related to Bifrost. The Bifrost team remains committed to the ecosystem and will continue contributing to it.

It’s time for us to calmly discuss these issues. There are many.

Since the launch of Kusama and Polkadot, there has been a great deal of confusion. So far, OpenGov has not brought any improvements; if anything, it has made things worse. For more details, refer to this link: https://x.com/thewhiterabbitM/status/1824010344756326805.

Fact 1: We Have the Best Technology

I truly believe that we have the best technology, and I think we have some of the most talented individuals in the blockchain industry (Gav, Shawn, Joe, Rob, etc.). But it saddens me to see that we are slowly fading into obscurity.

However, how many startups, despite having the best technology, have still failed? \
Many. And we don’t remember them. We only remember the companies that succeeded in business, even if their technology was far from the best (you may have heard of a small startup called Microsoft).

If you can’t translate market potential, if you have no sales, and if you can’t meet industry demands, you’ll stagnate. You’ll shrink. Be ignored. Become niche.

Apple, for many years, was like this—on the brink of collapse—until they started releasing good products and found the right marketing angle.

Do we want to become the next AWS? The next Apple? The next Linux? Or the next forgotten blockchain?

We need to make a choice. For more details, refer to: https://x.com/seunlanlege/status/1824042909647180116.

Fact 2: The Honesty of the Numbers

Some may disagree with the numbers, but this is the conclusion I’ve drawn after reviewing polkadot.js.org.

Out of the 45 parachains/rollup chains, here’s the breakdown:

• 5 system chains
• 8 dead/ghost chains or chains with almost no activity
• 2 chains whose core business operates outside the Polkadot ecosystem (Astar with Sonyieum, and Manta with Pacific)

So, stating that Polkadot has 45 “active” parachains is somewhat exaggerated.
A more accurate number is closer to 30 active, legitimate chains.

Moreover, the bulk of transaction activity is driven by no more than 10 parachains.
The recent Messari report is promising, showing growth in numbers, but once again, this growth is limited to a few active parachains, rather than reflecting the entire ecosystem.

Additionally, Mythical (a blockchain company or project) is going to once again skew perceptions of the ecosystem’s health. Mythical’s significant contribution means next quarter’s numbers will surely rise, but this could mislead people about the broader ecosystem’s actual status.

Those pushing for a DOT Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) are simply living in a fantasy, disconnected from reality—there’s no real demand for it.

Fact 3: Missed Opportunities

Here’s a simple example: Polymarket vs. Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist has been around for a long time. Prediction markets have been established as a business model for quite some time. So, why hasn’t Zeitgeist taken off like Polymarket?
I’m sure you could list other similar examples within the ecosystem:

• dYdX chose Cosmos over Polkadot.
• …

We have great ideas (products and technologies), but we struggle to build a user base or market them effectively.

Just look at how other ecosystems have adopted Polkadot’s original scalability design:

• Avalanche subnets
• Ethereum restaking
• Cardano’s collaboration chains

And the list goes on.

Ethereum has been trying to build its Layer 2 narrative, but so far, it’s falling apart. Ethereum is failing to scale, and most Layer 2 solutions are just high-risk experiments for users, plagued with issues like multisigs and lack of fraud proofs.

Restaking is another high-risk approach, attempting to reinvent shared security, but it’s not native and comes with a high-risk/high-reward narrative.

Polkadot’s Vision? What is it?

This question has practically become a meme at this point. For more details, refer to: https://x.com/irvinxyz/status/1825216720182874223.
No one seems to be able to answer this question, especially outside our own Polkadot circles. Even within the community, I’m not sure we truly know what we’re aiming to achieve—just look at Polkadot’s marketing efforts. They have made no real progress.

JAM (Cross-Chain Asset Liquidity Protocol) represents an ambitious vision, but right now, it’s just a gray paper, a theory, something that’s supposed to be realized in two to three years—an eternity in the Crypto world.

JAM Research

We need to be clear: JAM provides no immediate or short-term value.
It is too complex and difficult for the average user to grasp. Moreover, it doesn’t address any of the current limitations or demands of Polkadot 1.0 (or even 2.0):

• Polkadot 1.0 currently handles 100 transactions per second (TPS)
• Polkadot 2.0 is theoretically capable of reaching 100,000 TPS
• JAM is theoretically capable of reaching 1 million TPS

This feels like we’re designing a brand-new aircraft, an Airbus A380 capable of carrying 500 passengers, while our Polkadot airline barely has 10 passengers on each flight.

While research is certainly valuable, I’m not denying that. However, we need to focus on business in the short and medium term.
It may not be as exciting or “cyberpunk,” but it’s absolutely crucial.

Where is Parity?

They hold one conference a year at Decoded. Have you seen Bjorn being active on social media?
I would expect the CEO of Parity to be more present, engaging with key industry accounts on social media and talking about Polkadot at major events.

Has Parity outlined a clear roadmap for Polkadot, showing what we aim to achieve and what Polkadot wants to become?
Just look at Solana in comparison: they are starting to dominate the industry. They’re adopting Microsoft’s business model. Every small project they win is a victory. Every team they support is a win. They are building regional sales teams in key populous areas to provide support.

So right now, Parity is part of the problem, not the solution. Parity should be driving solutions.

Decentralized Marketing: An Initial Misstep

Marketing has been unsatisfactory for months, and many teams agree on this. Then Parity decided to decentralize it entirely. It was as if Parity said: “You handle it, this is no longer my problem.”

And so it became a community issue. But we weren’t ready, lacking a smooth transition. More importantly, we don’t have a global marketing strategy.

We’re like a headless chicken.

We have no product to promote because we have no vision. While I understand the merits of decentralization, can everything be decentralized? Marketing agencies can certainly be decentralized in terms of execution. But where is the leadership? Who decides what we need to promote? What audience should we target more aggressively? Which use case should we prioritize?

Without clear direction or leadership, we will accomplish nothing.

My Thoughts on Marketing, Before, During, and After Decentralization:

Marketing should still be top-down:

Parity leads: Parity sets the vision, builds the narrative, and outlines the story.

The community selects marketing agencies in a competitive process to implement this story.

The agencies execute the plan based on clear KPIs.

Instead of dismantling the entire marketing department, they could have kept 2-3 people and hired an experienced marketing lead.

OpenGov and the Dramas

We often use the excuse that “OpenGov is still in its early stages,” but let’s clearly point out where it has failed:

• It continually stirs tension and jealousy within the community.
• It damages the image of VCs and projects, turning it into a haven for scammers and a nightmare for builders.
• History repeats itself after Kusama: the treasury is being depleted.
• There is relatively little spending on development or tools, while marketing expenses are disproportionately high.
• No budget, no plan, no strategy.

Polkadot Treasury:

We are holding onto some hope for Optimistic Funding.
One positive development is that we’ve introduced stablecoins as the payment currency for proposals. I also hope OpenGov will allow more parameterization for proposal creators.

Here are some of my thoughts:

• Prepayment Ratio Parameters: Proposers should be able to apply for a certain percentage of prepayment, with the remaining portion paid after milestones are achieved or commitments are collectively verified. Funds should only be locked and unlocked upon community validation.
• Account Age Restriction: The ability to submit proposals in certain tracks should depend on the age of the proposer’s account. This means a new proposer can’t request 1 million DOT in the “large spending track” without support from an established account. This would ensure that a trusted member vouches for the new proposer, lending their reputation to the proposal and enhancing community trust.
• Comment Restrictions: To avoid spam and trolling from fake accounts, comments could be restricted to accounts that are at least one month old.

HA (Councilor Candidate) Elections

The intention behind reforming the HA (Councilor Candidate) system was good, and I think we all agree on that. \
Unfortunately, the new process was (once again) launched without any proper planning because we rushed to act under the influence of a few major whales.
We can’t just follow along like zombies because one loud voice overshadows the rest. Instead, we should take the time to sit down, think through the process, document it, improve it, and validate it. Only then can you take action.

The Results:

• Some HA candidates are asking whale users to pay their bonds, potentially creating a questionable “agent-boss” dynamic. No one should be excluded from the HA election process due to bond requirements, which should be reasonable.
• HAs, although elected, lack a salary to start fulfilling their duties.

“Public Markets”

I’ve been thinking about whether we could introduce “Public Markets.”
Of course, this would require a plan and a clear global strategy, which, as previously mentioned, we currently lack.

At the core, we are a decentralized blockchain, and decentralization means serving the public—acting “for the people’s benefit.” OpenGov’s purpose is to spend treasury funds, which are public funds, not our own money, and therefore must be used efficiently. It’s similar to how we expect the taxes we pay to our national governments to be handled.

In real life, how do public administrations handle their needs to avoid corruption and excessive spending?
They set up a public market, where companies can apply. Competition ensures that the best deal is made, both in terms of the services provided and the price offered.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Example 1: Sports Sponsorships—Racing/FIFA Case

Goal: Avoid the problem of “I’d prefer to choose this sponsorship, but we’ve already funded the last two,” as well as avoiding overpricing and selecting sponsorships that don’t align with Polkadot’s needs.

Imagine we’ve already established a global marketing strategy. Polkadot needs a year-long sports sponsorship to boost brand awareness and reach.
Maximum budget: $3 million.
The requirements would be clearly listed: X, Y, Z.

1. Polkadot proposes that institutions come to OpenGov to compete in a “public market”.

Start date = 2 months from now.

1. Organizations propose different sponsorship projects:

• Target audience (anyone, developers, companies, VCs, etc.)
• Market (Asia, United States, Latin America, etc.)
• price
• Expected growth (KPI)

1. The community begins to discuss and compare different proposals.

2. Institutions adjust their proposals during voting because they see that their proposals are not the best: price is too high, output is too low, community feedback is poor, market positioning is wrong.

→Agency companies are competing.

1. Vote to decide the best solution, winner takes all.

Example 2: KYT (Know Your Transaction) – Chainalysis Case

Goal: Avoid the “I’ll keep putting forward proposals until they pass” problem and the problem of overpriced services.

Imagine we have developed a global financial strategy: Polkadot needs KYT to strengthen DOT’s financial opportunities.

• Budget: No upper limit.
• The requirements are: X, Y, Z.

Polkadot proposes that companies enter OpenGov and compete in the “public marketplace.”
Start date = 2 months later.

Companies present their projects to meet the KYT (Know Your Transaction) requirements, including:

• Service pricing
• Scope
• Company portfolio
• Business development opportunities

The community begins discussing and comparing the different proposals.

During the voting process, companies adjust their proposals as they realize theirs are not the best: prices are too high, output is too low, community feedback is poor, or business development opportunities are insufficient. \
→ The companies are competing.

Voting determines the best proposal, with the winner taking all.

What about now?

The Dark Side of Polkadot

We can list some events we’ve experienced:

• Early failures (Moonbeam bridge hack and Acala’s aUSD parameter error)
• Projects that have left or are leaving:
  • Nodle → zkSync
  • Manta → ETH Layer 2
  • Astar → Polygon
  • CDK → Optimism Superchain
  • Mangata → Eigenlayer
  • RMRK → Base
  • Composable → Every platform outside of Polkadot
• Insufficient block space flexibility (issues with parachain auctions)
• OpenGov is still in its early stages
• Lack of interoperability: Why haven’t we established connections with Cosmos and Cardano? Snowbridge has taken years.

Parity should be held accountable for projects leaving the ecosystem.
They should communicate about this, summarize the lessons learned, and take action.
Have you heard Parity mention projects leaving the ecosystem?
No, never.
Have you heard of Parity initiating plans to address these well-known issues?
No, never.

The Bright Side and Hope for Polkadot — Polkadot 2.0

We can still turn things around, yes, we can.
Here are some perspectives I’ve heard from various sources (including from Parity) and key points soon to be delivered:

• If necessary, introduce trade-offs around decentralization: 99% of users don’t care about decentralization—they use centralized chains because they’re fast and offer a good user experience. Similarly, 99% of projects don’t care about decentralization; they just want users.
• If a project doesn’t want to be fully decentralized on Polkadot, why not? It’s possible. Just use a single collator, achieve 0.5-second block times, and forget about censorship resistance. It should be flexible.
• Product offerings should meet market demands: Do you want to be Solana? Then go for it. For details, refer to: \
  https://x.com/bkchr/status/1818027282688352591
• Hyperbridge: Increase interoperability.
• There are many quality projects on Polkadot, and we should embrace them and help them grow: Mythical, Neuroweb, Frequency, Aventus, KILT, etc.
• In DeFi, though our numbers are small, we are builders, especially Hydration, Bifrost, or Acala (which is slowly rebuilding trust). The main issue, of course, is liquidity, but we can expand our product offerings and attract more users. We need interoperability.
• We can build open-source benchmarking tools to market more aggressively around narratives like transactions per second (TPS).

Polkadot 2.0 brings many long-awaited changes to the infrastructure:

• Asynchronous backing
• Coretime
• Elastic scaling
• (plus Snowbridge)

Polkadot Pay is coming soon (as is Nova Wallet Pay). We should treat these applications like the last lifeline: the stablecoin market is huge, though not exciting, but it is large (think TRON).
Let’s open the door for people to easily enter and exit the ecosystem with stablecoins, offering low-cost transactions and user-friendly use cases.

Therefore, we need to fully leverage these powerful features to bring more business to Polkadot. Projects will bring users, and users will bring activity.
We need to shift our mindset, create practical plans, and spend efficiently. Solana has a sales team—they built a brand on questionable infrastructure, but they have a business plan and are rebooting business on Solana by building trust through companies.

Conclusion

No, Polkadot is not dead, but it is slowly dying.
Do we want to become a “research chain”?
A chain that builds technologies others will use under fancy names, without calling it Polkadot.
Or do we want activity and strong businesses built around Polkadot?
That’s the main question.
Some people might say they’re satisfied with the idea of being a research chain—a purely Web3 chain with the most cyberpunk spirit. But if that’s the case, it should be communicated to the community because the community has expectations for DOT’s price.
A research chain won’t add value, only businesses will do that.

We are a small ecosystem in terms of numbers, and Parity should communicate with Cosmos, Cardano, Near, and try to form alliances.
Compared to Ethereum’s ecosystem, we’re all small in numbers, but united we would be stronger.
Cardano has BABE + GRANDPA, so why haven’t we established a trustless bridge with Cardano?
Why hasn’t anyone built on IBC to connect Polkadot and Cosmos? (Composable never fully implemented the logic). What about NEAR?
We shouldn’t isolate ourselves. We need more real interoperability, not just within Polkadot.

The most important point: Parity must wake up.
Yes, we are decentralized, but decentralization is no excuse for Parity’s failures.
They must be the ones driving this vehicle—communicating more, building a vision, connecting with the community (like HAs?), and defining Polkadot’s strategy so that decentralized entities can execute it.
Polkadot cannot exist like a headless chicken.

Long live Polkadot.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [Polkadot生态研究院]. All copyrights belong to the original author [Polkadot生态研究院]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.