PolkaBiz Retroactive Treasury Request January - April 2025
Beneficiary:"Mario and Christian formed an alliance following their time at PBA in Hong Kong. Since then, PolkaBiz has become a great tool to identify and nurture entrepreneurs for the Polkadot ecosystem. We’re really keen to keep working with them." - Tim Dobie, Director of Polkadot Blockchain Academy
PolkaBiz has been quietly but effectively building the foundation for the next generation of startups within Polkadot. In ref 1504, which received strong support from the majority of the community, we wanted to continue this kind of work. However, during the confirmation period, the proposal was unexpectedly rejected.
After consulting W3F and some community members, we have therefore decided to present a retroactive funding proposal for the past 4 months (January - April).
Here’s what we already achieved - verifiable results from January to April 2025:
- 100+ startup applications screened
- 68 startups mentored with 1:1 coaching on product-market fit, go-to-market strategies, business models, and pitching
- 8 startups secured Web3 Foundation grants in January alone, receiving $240,000 in total funding
- 3 additional startups funded via PBA-X, securing another $60,000 in grants
- Founder portal to track, guide, and support project onboarding within the ecosystem
- G6Networks signed an MOU with a national government, a deal facilitated through PolkaBiz connections
- A 100+ FTE Web2 development company introduced to the Web3 Deal Desk through our mentorship program
This work has been recognized not only by startups but by major ecosystem leaders such as the Web3 Foundation and the Polkadot Blockchain Academy.
This proposal only seeks fair retroactive compensation for 4 months of hard work:
- Originally $62,000 per quarter (approx. $20,666/month)
- Now $82,666.66 total including April
If Polkadot wants more applications, more builders, and more real usage, programs like PolkaBiz are essential. Together with the community, we are actively exploring the best ways to sustainably fund our efforts.
Here is the link to the full proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/142EZKo4CKbwIlGQklGl1MaIBT3qdMEDQHATro9UOiZI/edit?usp=sharing
Thank you all for your trust and support! 🙏
Comments (8)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (54)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (39)0.0 DOT
Comments (8)
Hello,
The work you do is interesting. Here are a few questions:
-
Is all the work done by just two people?
-
Could you share your methodology for reviewing startups? Do you have a documented framework or methodology you can share?
-
Could you mention the tasks you perform in the mentorships and the objectives of each one?
-
What is the link to the founder portal you developed?
-
What do the mentorships consist of after startups complete the program?
-
What is the selection process that startups wishing to hire your services must complete?
-
Is there any payment or commission that startups must pay you for your services?
Many thanks for your proposal, PolkaBiz!
We have carefully reviewed your application and are pleased to share our assessment below, prepared using our standardized evaluation methodology.
Summary of our analysis
■ Impact on the Ecosystem
The PolkaBiz proposal supports Polkadot’s growth by mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants, fostering innovation and adoption. However, the lack of long-term metrics, such as startup follow-on funding, limits evidence of sustained impact. The founder portal aids onboarding but lacks maintenance plans, reducing long-term certainty.
■ Governance Compatibility
The proposal aligns well with the MediumSpender origin, requesting 82,667 USDT within the 100,000 DOT limit, supporting ecosystem goals. A prior proposal (#1504) was rejected due to transparency issues, which PolkaBiz partially addresses with documented outcomes. The retroactive funding model risks setting a precedent, introducing governance complexity.
■ Cost-Benefit Ratio
The 82,667 USDT request is proportionate to outcomes like 300,000 USD in grants and 68 mentored startups, offering a 3.6 leverage ratio. The budget is reasonable compared to larger treasury requests, but no cheaper alternatives were considered, and long-term startup success is unquantified.
■ Transparency and Traceability
The proposal provides clear success metrics, like startups mentored and grants secured, but lacks a detailed budget breakdown, hindering financial transparency. Documentation is robust for past work, though confidential startup data limits public scrutiny, and no ongoing reporting is planned.
■ Record and Credibility
PolkaBiz has a strong track record, having mentored 68 startups and secured 300,000 USD in grants, with endorsements from Web3 Foundation and Polkadot Blockchain Academy leaders. Their completed projects, including a founder portal and a government MOU, demonstrate capability, though some data confidentiality slightly limits transparency.
Conclusion
🔹🔷🔹 vonFlandern 🔹🔷🔹 has therefore voted with: ** AYE **
Our methodology aims to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals objectively, effectively, and transparently, establishing clear decision-making foundations for our votes while making our process visible to the community.
For a deeper dive into our evaluation, please see the detailed report here.
Hello,
The work you do is interesting. Here are a few questions:
Is all the work done by just two people?
Could you share your methodology for reviewing startups? Do you have a documented framework or methodology you can share?
Could you mention the tasks you perform in the mentorships and the objectives of each one?
What is the link to the founder portal you developed?
What do the mentorships consist of after startups complete the program?
What is the selection process that startups wishing to hire your services must complete?
Is there any payment or commission that startups must pay you for your services?
Many thanks for your proposal, PolkaBiz!
We have carefully reviewed your application and are pleased to share our assessment below, prepared using our standardized evaluation methodology.
Summary of our analysis
■ Impact on the Ecosystem
The PolkaBiz proposal supports Polkadot’s growth by mentoring 68 startups and securing 300,000 USD in grants, fostering innovation and adoption. However, the lack of long-term metrics, such as startup follow-on funding, limits evidence of sustained impact. The founder portal aids onboarding but lacks maintenance plans, reducing long-term certainty.
■ Governance Compatibility
The proposal aligns well with the MediumSpender origin, requesting 82,667 USDT within the 100,000 DOT limit, supporting ecosystem goals. A prior proposal (#1504) was rejected due to transparency issues, which PolkaBiz partially addresses with documented outcomes. The retroactive funding model risks setting a precedent, introducing governance complexity.
■ Cost-Benefit Ratio
The 82,667 USDT request is proportionate to outcomes like 300,000 USD in grants and 68 mentored startups, offering a 3.6 leverage ratio. The budget is reasonable compared to larger treasury requests, but no cheaper alternatives were considered, and long-term startup success is unquantified.
■ Transparency and Traceability
The proposal provides clear success metrics, like startups mentored and grants secured, but lacks a detailed budget breakdown, hindering financial transparency. Documentation is robust for past work, though confidential startup data limits public scrutiny, and no ongoing reporting is planned.
■ Record and Credibility
PolkaBiz has a strong track record, having mentored 68 startups and secured 300,000 USD in grants, with endorsements from Web3 Foundation and Polkadot Blockchain Academy leaders. Their completed projects, including a founder portal and a government MOU, demonstrate capability, though some data confidentiality slightly limits transparency.
Conclusion
🔹🔷🔹 vonFlandern 🔹🔷🔹 has therefore voted with: ** AYE **
Our methodology aims to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals objectively, effectively, and transparently, establishing clear decision-making foundations for our votes while making our process visible to the community.
For a deeper dive into our evaluation, please see the detailed report here.