Polkadot OpenGov Overview

After the official launch of the Polkadot OpenGov in mid-June this year, Polkadot community has initiated a total of 87 Referenda, of which 40 have been Approved/Executed, 19 have been Rejected, 9 have timed out due to untimely deposits, 18 are currently Deciding, 1 is Preparing. Among the total 68 closed Referenda, the overall approval rate was 59 (40 out of 68).

There are 15 origin tracks of Polkadot Referenda, each of which is different in terms of Referenda capacity (e.g., Root track is only able to have 1 proposal at the same time, while Medium Spender is able to have 50) and each track has different parameters such as its decision period and approval threshold.

Among them, tracks like Root, Whitelisted Caller, Auction Admin, Staking Admin, General Admin, Lease Admin, Fellowship Admin, Referendum Canceller, Referendum Killer, are usually categorized for certain purposes (e.g., for system parameter settings, for Staking/Parachain leases and auctions, for Referendum cancellations and terminations, etc.), and they tend to require a big amount of Decision Deposits and will not involve a financial budget request. So, most of the projects choose to go through tracks of Medium Spender, Small Spender, Big Spender, Small Tipper, Big Tipper, and Treasurer, which are the 6 tracks for applying for community-driven funding from The Polkadot Treasury.

In terms of Referendum count, 3 tracks - Medium Spender, Small Tipper and Small Spender - ranked top, accounting for 62% of all 87 Referenda.

Graphic Source: https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/statistics

If we look at the amount of the issued DOT funds, the top 3 tracks are Medium Spender, Big Spender, and Treasurer. According to dotreasury, Polkadot Opengov has now issued nearly 900,000 $DOT in total, with Medium Spender (502,000 $DOT) being the track that has awarded the most funds, and Big Spender coming in second, giving out 295,000 $DOT.

There are 4 tracks with a cumulative disbursement of funds exceeding 10,000 $DOT. The details are as follows:

• Medium Spender can apply for a moderate amount of funding, up to 100,000 $DOT. It has the most number of Referenda, and a relatively high approval rate: 13 of 20 Referenda passed, 6 rejected, and 1 timed out. The total votes with conviction of a referendum, up to 14.19 million $DOT, and lowest to 2.02 million $DOT, with an average of 5.11 million $DOT; The total capital of a referendum, peaked at 8.43 million $DOT, lowest to 0.96 million $DOT, at an average of 2.87 million $DOT.
• Small Spender can apply for a small funding, up to 10,000 $DOT, most of which has been rejected (11 Referenda in total, with only 2 passed). The total votes with conviction of a referendum, highest of 5.63 million $DOT, lowest at 2.13 million $DOT, average 3.66 million $DOT; The total capital of a referendum, highest 3.22 million $DOT, lowest 1.15 million $DOT, with an average of 1.66 million $DOT.
• Treasury can apply for the largest amount of funds, up to 10 million $DOT, higher than the actual funding needs of the normal program, so the number of applications is limited. So far there is only 1 proposal approved, with total votes with conviction of 9.09 million $DOT, and total capital of 3.05 million $DOT.
• Big Spender can apply for a larger amount of funds, up to 1 million $DOT, and therefore the passing barrier is high, and the application is relatively rare (a total of 8 Referenda, with 3 passed). The total votes with conviction of a referendum, the highest of 14.62 million $DOT, lowest 6.67 million $DOT, with an average of 9.51 million $DOT; The total capital of a referendum, highest 14.99 million $DOT, lowest 2.65 million $DOT, average of 7.63 million $DOT.

Closed Referenda Votes in the Medium Spender Track/Graphic Source: https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/track/33/statistics

Lastly, we notice that approved Referenda show some or all of the following features:

• The projects already have some exposure in the Polkadot ecosystem. The team structure is complete. Most of them have been Web3 Grant awarded or are Parachain projects. The continuity of the development roadmap is good, and the direction and budget of the proposals are relatively reasonable.

For example, KILT applies for DIP development (#5), Subsquid applies for data indexing development (#15), and Polkaworld applies for marketing and media funding (#4).

• Multiple Parachains and teams co-initiated with the primary goal of promoting the Polkadot ecosystem.

For example, HydraDX joined with Astar, Acala and 5 other Parachains to apply for audit bounty (#47), Tribe Relayer incubator proposal (#43).

• Projects related to working on Polkadot infrastructure and providing public services.

For example, OnFinality requested funds for RPC service fees for Parachains (#45) and Nova Wallet requested reimbursement for delivered features (#8).

About DFG

Digital Finance Group (DFG) is a global blockchain and cryptocurrency investment firm founded in 2015 with assets under management of over $1 billion. Through a wide range of sectors within the blockchain ecosystem such as Web3.0, CeFi, DeFi, NFTs, the Polkadot ecosystem.

Investments include Circle, Ledger, Coinlist, FV Bank, Astar, ChainSafe and over 100 more. DFG intends to create value, through analytical research, based on the most impactful and promising global blockchain and Web3.0 projects that will bring a paradigm shift to the world.

DFG Website: https://dfg.group
DFG Twitter: @DFG__Official
DFG LinkedIn: DFG