Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Bounty to back Apillon Web3 development platform as a common good infrastructure
Bounty to back Apillon Web3 development platform as an open-source, common good infrastructure
Requested DOT: 999,999
Respecting the feedback we garnered and addressing the concerns raised by some community members, we’re introducing certain changes to the Proposal that would, hopefully, reassure everyone of the ecosystem-first objectives of Apillon’s transition to an open-source infrastructure.
Read more about our commitment to respecting community voice and delivering user-first solutions long-term: How ecosystem engagement helped steer the way of the Apillon Proposal.
With this Proposal, the Apillon platform would transition to an open-source infrastructure solution with permanent freemium access, governed by the community, and thus become a common good project, further spurring Web3 adoption, Polkadot ecosystem growth, and DOT utility.
Apillon (apillon.io) is a Web3 development platform (app.apillon.io) empowering developers to easily build dapps and other Web3 products in the Polkadot ecosystem.
Currently, the platform provides the functionality of dashboard-based deployment of Web3 services and API connectivity - the parachains’ functionalities are abstracted and translated into ready-to-use, few-click Web3 services that can be combined to power multi-chain Web3 projects.
Through DOT-based open governance by the Apillon community, the platform would undergo future upgrades, including integrations of voted parachain and other services, to best respond to users' needs and deliver user-oriented opportunities for Web3 adoption.
The updates to the Proposal are as follows:
- Proposal format changes from Treasury to Bounty to align with OpenGov funding schemes and give more control to the governance and treasury community, as a direct answer to raised concerns in the public discussion phase.
- The total funding amount changes slightly to compensate for the DOT price volatility and treasury track placement.
We want to make the concept of Apillon’s Treasury Proposal as comprehensive and transparent as possible. We will do our best to provide additional explanation and information you might request.
Payout structure
Additional links:
- The full Apillon Proposal
- The Apillon platform Quick Demo
- The official Apillon Proposal announcement
Please post any questions, concerns, or feedback in one of the following ways:
- In the comments section below
- In the Polkadot Forum comment section (informal)
- In the Polkadot Direction Element channel comments section (informal)
Comments (19)
Proposal Failed
its extremely unusual for a treasury proposal to include funding for the team to travel to events and conferences ($84,000 per year) as well as HR and admin costs ($180,000 per year) - other proposals have been voted down for this exact reason. Additionally, what are the differences between "Operational Costs" ($84,000 per year) and "Supporting Staff" ($180,000 per year), surely "Expenses associated with administrative work, employee salaries" would be covered under the payroll of "Supporting Staff"? It's concerning that you're asking fora up front lump sum payment of over a million dollars ($1,320,000), why can't you instead model this on a milestone success based proposal? Etc you complete a milestone and then you receive payment? Finally, this raises big red flags *"It is important to note that the team expects to have complete autonomy over how the runway funds are utilised, similar to a traditional fundraising scenario"* - you are asking for funding by the treasury to do something, but you're not promising that you will actually do that
Hey @james_bayly
I appreciate your concerns and skepticism regarding the funding proposal. Transparency and good stewardship are essential when dealing with public funds. I’ll try to address your concerns one by one.
**Each new developer on Apillon is a new developer for Polkadot, not many projects can say that. ** Our plan is to expand conferences presence wider than the Polkadot system, e.g. We are developers, Websummit, and similar.
Difference between Operational Costs and Supporting Staff: Operational costs and supporting staff costs are indeed different. The Supporting Staff line item covers salaries for administrative and supporting roles. On the other hand, Operational Costs are for expenses that support our daily operations, such as office rent, utilities, etc.
Upfront lump-sum payment: The request for a lump sum rather than a milestone-based payment system is for financial stability. Our project involves significant initial costs, and milestone-based payments can sometimes introduce uncertainty, which may affect project continuity. However, we do understand the risk it poses to the treasury and that there were some bad experiences with the spendings in the past. Therefore, we have proposed a hybrid model with a partial upfront payment, followed by milestone-based payments as it can be seen on the infographic below:
In essence, the aim of our proposal is to act in the best interests of the project and community, and we’re open to feedback and revisions to better align with those goals. We understand that a significant amount of trust is needed to support this proposal, but we think we have addressed those concerns through our work so far (all milestones have been reviewed by Parity / Substrate Builders Program team), as it will be done for all future milestones outlined in the proposal. We’re committed to earning and maintaining that trust.
Responded on your main Polkadot Forum post.
Its far easier imo using discourse to thread conversations and cross-reference knowledge and since most governance interfaces are off-chain and primarily only read, rather that write data, it really doesn't matter where you post.