Polkassembly - v.o.x framework vs pUSD: Scope, Governance, and Whether Polkadot Is Really Decentralised #3378

Polkadot is currently pushing a DOT-collateralised, Honzon-style stablecoin (pUSD). That is a valid but narrow path. At the same time, an alternative design – the v.o.x framework – was put forward to create a chain-agnostic, macro-aware valuation and transparency layer, not just “another stable”. That alternative did not receive the same visibility on Polkassembly. My Polkassembly accounts were restricted after raising the v.o.x framework. If our main governance gateway can quietly limit competing economic proposals, we have decentralisation in form, not in substance. This post asks the community to acknowledge the second design, to reopen the debate, and to make moderation rules explicit.

1. Why I am posting this

This post is to put on record that, in 2024–2025, there were two materially different directions for a Polkadot “monetary” / “value” layer:

pUSD – a DOT-backed, over-collateralised, Honzon-lineage stablecoin being advanced through current governance rails.
v.o.x framework – a broader, chain-agnostic value and transparency framework designed to compare activity across Polkadot, Ethereum and other networks, and to avoid single-asset fragility.

Only the first is being fully amplified through the official governance gateway.

2. What pUSD is

Design: pUSD is a debt-minted, over-collateralised stablecoin. Users lock DOT and mint pUSD. They must maintain the required collateral ratio or face liquidation.
Lineage: The approach is descended from the Acala / Honzon model (what previously powered aUSD), with promises of better controls this time.
Intent: Give Polkadot a native unit so the ecosystem does not rely solely on USDT/USDC.
Reality: It is still single-asset (DOT) dependent, and therefore imports DOT price and liquidity risk directly into the “stable”.

Sources (public):

Polkadot governance discussions on pUSD (Polkassembly / OpenGov)
Acala documentation on Honzon / aUSD design (for the earlier model)
Asset Hub / system chains updates on stable assets

3. What the v.o.x framework proposed

The v.o.x framework was not a like-for-like competitor to pUSD. It was deliberately wider:

Multi-chain from the start – aim: compare and normalise value between Polkadot, Ethereum and other networks.
Macro-aware – aim: pull in on-chain activity (TVL movements, protocol growth, issuance, liquidity depth) and, where possible, external macro signals so the value standard is not purely reflexive.
Multi-source / multi-collateral – aim: avoid the “all risk in DOT” problem.
Transparency portal (a v.o.x UI) – aim: show why a value is assigned and which chains / sources contributed.
DAO-directed parameters – aim: the community chooses the data sources and eligible networks, not a single development team.

This part is my work. It is not a treasury-funded Polkadot deliverable, so there is no official Polkadot URL for you to point to. On internal drafts and architecture notes: can’t say.

4. The key differences

Aspect	pUSD (current path)	v.o.x framework (proposed path)
Scope	One chain, one collateral (DOT), one output (USD-pegged unit)	Cross-chain, multi-input, valuation + transparency layer
Risk	Directly exposed to DOT price/liquidity and to the execution of one design family	Designed to spread and surface risk across sources
Control	Advanced through the existing, moderated, treasury-funded gateway (Polkassembly / OpenGov) by a small, known set of actors	Intended to let a DAO select data sources and networks, reducing the chance of single-team capture
Outcome	“Polkadot has a stablecoin.”	“Polkadot becomes a value-honest, multi-chain-aware hub.”

5. On the “decentralised” part

Polkassembly describes itself as supporting decentralised, transparent and inclusive governance. That is the claim.

What I experienced was different:

The main gateway is ecosystem-funded, so it is not completely neutral.
Proposals from already-recognised teams are surfaced and socialised.
A competing, broader economic design (the v.o.x framework) was not given the same runway.
Moderation / account decisions were used in a way that effectively removed that design from the main forum.

That is why I am stating, plainly:

This is the gateway that has been blocked.

If a governance gateway can restrict a technically aligned but non-aligned proposal, we have to say so openly.

6. Personal note (read as testimony)

My Polkassembly accounts were blocked/restricted after I started presenting the v.o.x framework and pointing out that Polkadot was about to ship a narrower monetary primitive than was actually possible.

That is my testimony. Anyone who wishes to contest it should ask the Polkassembly administrators for their side. If there is a policy that allows that kind of restriction, it should be published.

7. What I am asking the community

Acknowledge that there was a second, more ambitious design (the v.o.x framework) beside pUSD.
Require equal procedural access on Polkassembly for non-treasury, community designs – especially when they expose structural gaps.
Reopen the economic discussion: do we want a single-asset, debt-style stablecoin, or do we want a macro-aware, chain-agnostic value layer?
Publish clear, public moderation and account-restriction rules so that governance forums cannot be quietly weaponised.

8. Why this matters

If we only ship pUSD, we will have a stablecoin, but we will not have a value system.

If we allow the main governance gateway to limit uncomfortable but constructive designs, then what we are calling “decentralised development” is really centralised agenda-setting with a community UI on top.

If Polkadot wants to attract serious, multi-chain capital, it needs the broader, transparent, metric-driven approach – not just a rebadged Acala-style stable.