The Web3 Foundation (W3F) publicly commits to transparency, openness, non-discrimination, and community empowerment. These principles are outlined in multiple official sources, including:
📌 “Web3 Foundation Manifesto”
📌 “Validator Community Development Objectives”
📌 Treasury & Ecosystem Growth Framework
❗ Problem Statement
The current Decentralized Nodes (DN) Program operated by W3F shows:
Opacity in validator selection
• No published scoring system
• No rationale behind decisions
• Visible favoritism - same entities recurrently selected
No guarantees for prior participants despite commitments
• Validators are encouraged to invest in infrastructure, but selection is arbitrary
• Creates financial risks, harms ecosystem trust
Direct conflict with Web3 ethos
A foundation cannot unilaterally run a system that critically affects network security while rejecting governance oversight.
Governance Competence
Any program that affects:
validator distribution
decentralization
security of the relay chain
access to block validation rewards
falls under OpenGov jurisdiction.
OpenGov is the ultimate governance authority in Polkadot.
Thus, W3F must:
✔ Report to governance
✔ Publicly justify selection mechanisms
✔ Provide due process for denied participants
✔ Disclose conflict-of-interest risks
✅ Requested actions via WFC
We request:
Auditable transparency report for DN Cohorts 1–3
Clear public selection criteria and scoring methodology
Guarantees of continuity for qualified validators
A pathway to integrate OpenGov oversight into future DN operations
This is not an attack on W3F
This is a defense of Polkadot’s founding principles.
P.S. I initiated an open discussion directly addressing these concerns:
👉 https://polkadot.subsquare.io/posts/427