The Polkadot blockchain ecosystem is under scrutiny for alleged unfair treatment of Asian-led projects.
Claims of a hostile environment and discriminatory practices have ignited a broader debate on inclusivity in the blockchain world. Asian project leaders argue they face more obstacles than their Western counterparts, questioning the ecosystem’s support and grant allocation processes.
Allegations from Asian Project Leaders
Victor Ji, co-founder of Manta Network, described the Polkadot ecosystem as “highly toxic” for Asian projects. Initially supported by the Web3 Foundation, Ji experienced a distancing from the ecosystem after securing funding. He cited complex politics, exclusive cliques, and difficulties in obtaining grants as major challenges.
Harold Yu, founder of DIN, echoed Ji’s concerns, stating that the grant application process was overly complicated. Both Ji and Yu highlighted the contrast between their struggles and the easier access to substantial grants for European and US-based projects. This perceived disparity has led to frustration and a sense of unfairness among Asian project leaders. Despite the criticisms, Ji acknowledged Polkadot’s impressive technology and vision, suggesting the issues lie in the ecosystem’s culture and practices rather than its technical foundations.
Financial Context and Community Response
Adding to the controversy, Polkadot’s recent financial report revealed a significant expenditure of 11 million DOTs (worth $87 million), with $37 million allocated to marketing. This high spending level has drawn criticism from the community, who argue that it has not yielded the expected returns. The current expenditure rate suggests Polkadot’s funds will last approximately two more years, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of its financial strategy. This financial context has further fueled the debate about resource allocation and support for diverse projects within the Polkadot ecosystem.