Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
[Wish For Change] The Dynamic Allocation Pool (DAP) and the future of staking: Phase 1
37 days ago
Executed
Overview
This WFC proposes changes to the Polkadot protocol as part of the first phase of the DAP roadmap. The goal is to transition towards a fully functional DAP and to lay the foundation for an integration of Proof-of-Personhood. By accepting this WFC, the Polkadot community expresses approval of:
- General
- Implement a basic version of the DAP pallet with a permanent account that can hold DOT.
- Stop the burning of all DOT in the system.
- DOT from transaction fees (on the Relay Chain and all system chains) and from coretime sales will be collected in their respective system parachains and, in a later phase, transferred to the DAP main account.
- Treasury burns will be stopped, and the corresponding DOT will instead remain in the Treasury.
- Redirect DOT acquired from slashes to the DAP.
- Validators
- Minimum self-stake: 10'000 DOT
- Minimum commission: 10%
- Nominators
- Nominator's stake is exempt from slashes.
- Drastic reduction of unbonding time. Nominator's stake can unbond as soon as they are not backing any active validators anymore. Depending on when the unbonding extrinsic was cast, this takes between a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 48 hours.
The enactment of these changes is scheduled to happen on or before 14th March 2026 and completes Phase 1. Upcoming changes will further build out the functionality of the DAP with updates to follow in due time.
Comments (7)
Proposal Passed
It is with great pleasure that helixstreet casts this final vote of the year in full support of the proposal.
@helixstreet.foundation What’s the point of having earlier community proposals that introduced and approved burn mechanics if this new one just reverses that direction? By stopping burns, it hands more power to whales to shape the system around their own preferences instead of the broader community. When DOT is burned, everyone benefits from reduced supply and a clearer economic model, but in this proposal the main advantage goes to large holders while tokens stay in circulation under their influence. That does not look like a sustainable business model, it looks more like governance drama or a circus, and it feels unfair to smaller holders who trusted the previous economic direction. On top of that, changing the rules before the burn mechanism is even fully applied is discouraging for new holders, because it shows that tokenomics and community decisions can be reversed at any time, making it much harder to trust the long‑term direction of the DOT ecosystem.
What’s the point of having earlier community proposals that introduced and approved burn mechanics if this new one just reverses that direction? By stopping burns, it hands more power to whales to shape the system around their own preferences instead of the broader community. When DOT is burned, everyone benefits from reduced supply and a clearer economic model, but in this proposal the main advantage goes to large holders while tokens stay in circulation under their influence. That does not look like a sustainable business model, it looks more like governance drama or a circus, and it feels unfair to smaller holders who trusted the previous economic direction. On top of that, changing the rules before the burn mechanism is even fully applied is discouraging for new holders, because it shows that tokenomics and community decisions can be reversed at any time, making it much harder to trust the long‑term direction of the DOT ecosystem.