Hi everyone, following my reflections on Referendum #1417 – Closing Bounty 49 (Technical Support Bounty), as the CEO of KUNVENO, the company behind the development of work3spaces (w3s), I want to highlight our first-hand experience with this Bounty and explain why we believe it plays a crucial role in supporting teams navigating the Polkadot ecosystem.

Why we chose Polkadot for w3s

When we started developing w3s, we evaluated multiple blockchain networks before choosing Polkadot. Our decision was based not only on Polkadot’s technical advantages, but also on the support ecosystem that Polkadot offers to builders.

From the very beginning, the Business Development (BD) team for Spain & Andorra played an active role in guiding our project towards Polkadot. Their work helped attract w3s to the ecosystem, ensuring we could leverage Polkadot’s unique features and build a project with long-term sustainability. This is why we see Polkadot as more than just a blockchain; in our eyes, it’s an ecosystem that fosters innovation and provides essential support for projects like ours.

A key part of this support system was the Technical Support Bounty, which allowed us to receive direct assistance from expert consultants familiar with Polkadot’s complex stack.

Our journey with the Technical Support Bounty

Our engagement with the Bounty started through direct interactions with the BD team at major Web3 events:

July 2024: First discussions with the Head Ambassador in Spain at Polkadot Decoded in Brussels, where we explored potential support opportunities within the ecosystem.

October 2024: Further discussions at Merge Madrid, where Polkadot had a stand. During this event, the BD team informed us about the Technical Support Bounty and how it could assist projects like ours.

In January 2025, we submitted our request for support, completing the Requester Form and providing a detailed document outlining the assistance needed to address key technical challenges. Our request was approved, and we selected Alex Bean as our assigned technical expert.

Since then, Alex has been actively supporting our development team in technical meetings, providing guidance as we integrate Polkadot-native solutions into our technology. Our project is still ongoing, and we can confidently say that this Bounty has been a crucial enabler of our progress.

Addressing the challenges we encountered: Why this Bounty remains essential for Polkadot builders

Through our experience, we identified several critical challenges that projects face when building on Polkadot—challenges that the Technical Support Bounty helps address:

Scarcity of skilled developers. One of the most significant barriers for new projects like ours is the shortage of developers experienced with Substrate and Ink and other Polkadot-specific technology. Unlike more widely adopted blockchain stacks, Polkadot requires specialised knowledge, making recruitment difficult. In our experience, the Bounty helps alleviate this challenge by providing structured access to experts who can guide projects through the ecosystem’s technical complexities.

Limited awareness and adoption of the Bounty.  In our opinion, the relatively low engagement with the Bounty should not be mistaken for a lack of need. Rather, it suggests that awareness and accessibility have been key barriers to participation. Our team discovered the bounty by chance through direct interaction with the Head Ambassador in Spain and the BD team, not through any widely advertised channel. Many other projects may have missed out on potential support simply because they were unaware of its existence.

The need for structured technical guidance. The Polkadot ecosystem is powerful but complex, requiring developers to navigate various technical components. Many projects, including ours, likely struggle with these technical complexities. Without structured guidance, companies probably resort to costly trial-and-error approaches or delayed integrations, or abandon the Polkadot technology altogether. The Bounty provides a formalised support structure that ensures projects and companies receive expert assistance rather than facing these challenges alone.

A more constructive approach: Optimisation over closure

Instead of closing the Bounty outright, we propose that the community consider reforming and improving its implementation to better serve projects. From our experience, potential improvements could include:

Increased outreach and visibility: Ensuring that more projects are aware of the Bounty’s availability through improved communication and engagement efforts.

Clearer engagement processes: Establishing standardised workflows that make it easier for BD teams to match projects/companies with technical experts.

Defined success metrics: Introducing measurable impact indicators to ensure accountability and track the Bounty’s effectiveness.

Conclusion: Strengthening support for solid projects in the ecosystem

In conclusion, while we understand the reasoning behind the proposal to close the Bounty, we believe that its purpose remains highly relevant. We also believe that the challenges of talent shortage, technical complexity, and limited access to expert guidance impact many projects or prospect projects in the ecosystem, including ours.

Before discontinuing this initiative, we encourage further discussion on how the Bounty could be optimised to better fulfil its intended role.

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this conversation and hope that a balanced approach can be found, one that ensures projects like ours building on Polkadot continue to receive the support they need.