Threshold
PolkaWorld votes NAY
1. Work-hour structure is unreasonable: Project management + Shadow research + state archiving together account for nearly 1,100 hours, which is almost 46% of total hours — a very unusual allocation. The parts that actually deliver visible SDK-level functionality (like erasure coding, state sync, multi-slot collation) total only about 1,200 hours, roughly 50% of the total. For a 4-month technical proposal aimed at core SDK implementation, this ratio is disproportionately high.
2. Some costs are opaque: Items like compliance expenses and tooling fees aren’t clearly detailed in the budget, making it hard to assess their validity.
3. PolkaWorld rejects any proposal with an hourly rate above $100 — this proposal’s rate is $120/hour.
We recommend the team break down tasks more clearly and focus resources on the truly critical feature implementations to improve funding efficiency.
I’m struggling to understand the rationale behind this proposal.
The Polkadot-SDK repository is owned by Parity, which itself is founded by the Web3 Foundation. Part of that funding is explicitly meant to cover the maintenance of this repository.
If Parity wishes to delegate certain areas of the maintenance to an external team, the logical and accountable approach would be for Parity to hire that team directly and establish a formal agreement (e.g., an SLA) to ensure these responsibilities are properly fulfilled. This would provide clear oversight and maintain alignment with Parity’s ownership of the repo.
If Parity believes its current funding from the Web3 Foundation is insufficient, then it should be Parity submitting an OpenGov proposal to request additional resources. However, that seems inconsistent with reality, as Parity is actively hiring, an indication that they have sufficient funds.
What doesn’t make sense, in my view, is for an external team to approach the treasury “on behalf of” Parity to secure a substantial sum for maintaining a repository that Parity owns and is ultimately responsible for. This approach bypasses accountability and creates an unnecessary layer of indirection between the treasury and the actual owner of the repo.
Hello,
Could you please share some estimated metrics related to the improvements that the implementation of this proposal will represent for the infrastructure?