The Polkadot blockchain ecosystem is currently embroiled in a controversy regarding its treatment of Asian-led projects. Allegations of unfair practices and a hostile environment have emerged, sparking a broader debate about inclusivity in the blockchain world. Asian project leaders have reported facing additional hurdles and obstacles compared to their Western counterparts, raising concerns about the ecosystem’s support structure and grant allocation processes. This situation has brought to light important questions about diversity and equal opportunities in the rapidly evolving landscape of blockchain and decentralized technologies.
Specific Allegations and Experiences
Victor Ji, co-founder of Manta Network, has been at the forefront of these allegations, describing the Polkadot ecosystem as “highly toxic” for Asian projects. Ji recounted his experience of initial support from the Web3 Foundation, followed by a gradual distancing from the ecosystem after securing funding. He highlighted challenges such as complex politics, exclusive cliques, and difficulties in obtaining grants.
Ji’s claims were supported by Harold Yu, founder of DIN, who agreed that the grant application process was overly complicated and burdensome. Both Ji and Yu pointed out a stark contrast between their experiences and those of European and US-based projects, which they claim can more easily secure substantial grants.
This perceived disparity has led to frustration and a sense of unfairness among Asian project leaders. Despite these criticisms, Ji acknowledged Polkadot’s impressive technology and vision, suggesting that the issues lie more in the ecosystem’s culture and practices rather than its technical foundations.
Also Read: Binance Rejoices Partial Victory Against SEC As Legal Battle Continues
Financial Context and Community Response
Adding to the controversy is Polkadot’s recent financial report for the first half of the year. The report revealed a significant expenditure of 11 million DOTs worth $87 million, with $37 million allocated to marketing alone. This high level of spending has drawn criticism from the community, who argue that it has not yielded the expected returns.
The current rate of expenditure suggests that Polkadot’s funds will last for approximately two more years, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem’s financial strategy. This financial context has further fueled the debate about resource allocation and support for diverse projects within the Polkadot ecosystem.
Also Read: PEPE Price: Whale Sacks 1.2 Tln Coins Amid Monthly Crash, Is Price Gearing Up For Rally?
✓ Share:
CoinGape comprises an experienced team of native content writers and editors working round the clock to cover news globally and present news as a fact rather than an opinion. CoinGape writers and reporters contributed to this article.
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
