@niftesty 

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for sharing the Notion link. I’ve gone through it before, and again now.

I want to respond to a few concrete points, because I think some of what you wrote misrepresents both the situation and my position.

---

1. On “one of the best researched projects”

You wrote:

https://polkadot-ui.com/ was one of the best researched projects before starting, and I fully stand behind it…

From my perspective, this is exactly the problem.

A project that claims to be “one of the best researched” should at minimum have:

• Validated that it can be used in at least one real existing OSS dApp, end-to-end.
• Demonstrated a working reference dApp built by the authors themselves using the library.

Neither of these happened:

• As far as I know, no existing OSS dApp was ever successfully ported or built on top of polkadot-ui.
• Not even the project authors have been able to point to a single fully working, production-ready dApp that uses the library as intended.

Despite that, the library was heavily promoted:

• Branded and marketed as “Polkadot UI”.
• Pushed via official channels.
• Strongly recommended to hackathon participants as if it were a polished, production-ready tool rather than an unvalidated experiment.

That’s exactly the gap I’m pointing at: the research may have involved calls, documents, and stakeholder interviews, but it didn’t validate the actual viability of the approach in real-world code before it was marketed as “the way to build modern Polkadot UIs”.

---

2. On ad hominem and responsibility

You also wrote:

Josep thinks he is the only expert in the field…
his ego cannot take other actors besides him…
he is deliberately picking enemies which he then bullies.
The reason I do not want to work on the library anymore (for now) is him.

This is exactly the kind of ad hominem that makes it hard to have a serious, technical discussion.

I’m criticising:

• The approach taken with polkadot-ui,
• The way it was promoted, and
• The appropriateness of entrusting its development to a curator of the bounty who didn't have any experience building libraries.

That’s not the same as attacking you as a person. Saying “this design and this process are wrong for a treasury-funded, ecosystem-wide library” is not bullying; it’s criticism of work that is being presented as a public good.

I’d really prefer if we could keep the conversation at the level of decisions, outcomes, and use of treasury, rather than psychoanalyzing each other.

---

3. On “not being able to work with others”

You imply I “cannot take other actors besides me”, but my actual track record in this ecosystem says the opposite.

Just to name a few:

• I assembled and work with the PAPI team that you like so much.
• I collaborate on a daily basis with people from Parity, SoDa Zone, ParaSpell, Talisman, and others.
• I’ve had many collaborations that are completely drama-free.

What I do have very little patience for is:

• Development done from an ivory tower,
• Without the authors themselves trying to validate their own abstractions, and
• Without showing that real dApps can actually be built and maintained with the library.

It’s not about refusing to work with people; it’s about refusing to pretend that something works when all the evidence points the other way.

---

4. On feedback and stakeholder conversations

You mention:

We contacted 13 stakeholders and … the large amount was in favor of our approach. Josep thinks he is the only expert…

I don’t think I’m the only expert. I do think that:

• A lot of people in this space don’t feel comfortable giving blunt negative feedback, especially when they expect pushback, long arguments, or emotional reactions in return. It is often easier to say “sounds cool” than to say “I don’t think this approach will work in practice”.
• I was not the only person skeptical of the approach. Others expressed doubts too, some privately, some publicly. Are you certain that out of those 13 people interviewed I was the only one who was skeptical?

It’s very easy, to interpret polite or non-committal feedback as “support”.

The end result speaks louder than any stakeholder call: if after all that supposed support no one is actually using the library, not even you, that’s a much stronger signal than any number of “sounds good” calls.

---

5. On my stance toward a UI library (and Dedot)

I want to be very clear: I was never against building a UI library.

I was against:

• Building it in this particular way,
• With this abstraction strategy,
• Without proving it in a real app,
• While branding and promoting it as “Polkadot UI” before it had earned that position.

I genuinely gave it the benefit of the doubt:

• I tried to use the library myself.
• I failed to get something sensible working.
• That’s exactly why I kept asking: “Can you show me a real dApp that effectively leverages this library?” Not to score points, but because my intuition was that the abstractions didn’t map well to reality.

On Dedot specifically: the statement

“He also does not like that we collaborated with dedot which his ego also cannot take.”

…is just false.

When I spoke with your colleague in Bali after the presentation, I explicitly recommended:

• Dropping support for PAPI in polkadot-ui, and
• Focusing solely on Dedot, because it made more sense to consolidate effort there rather than trying to support multiple underlying stacks.

That’s the opposite of being upset about your collaboration with Dedot.

---

6. Back to the core issue

All of this is happening in the context of a treasury-funded UX bounty that:

• Picked one of its curators with no experience building libraries as the author,
• Promoted it very heavily as a flagship piece of “modern Polkadot tooling”, and
• Now has a library with <10 weekly downloads and no visible production usage.

My criticism isn't against you personally. I mean, I know that you take it that way, but that's not what it is. My criticism is that:

• The process,
• The incentives, and
• The bar for validation

were nowhere near where they should be for something flying under the “Polkadot UI” banner and funded with treasury funds.

You’re free to stand behind the work. I’m free to point out that, by any reasonable standard of actual adoption and validation, it failed, and that pushing it as a default choice for developers was a mistake.

We can disagree on that. But turning that disagreement into “ego”, “bullying”, and “picking enemies” is not accurate and doesn’t help anyone.