EasyA is an Easy Aye. High Quality team.

I have doubt about numbers in this proposal. How 1 million users and 126 projects are measured and how many of them can be active in polkadot?

Supportive as this is a continuing milestone, and the benefit of the proposal is awarness among young developers. Ultimately it's important not just to have views in the app or attendees at the hackathons, but onchain metrics like contracts deployed, txs, accounts, and teams that deploy to prod on Hub and build communities and businesses.

They are very effective at what they do and I 100% support this. I want to point out that witnessing how they do things they are moving forward the whole industry. On the other hand I feel Polkadot should be supporting them with more in the ground people/judges/visionaries to help hackathon peeps choose Polkadot to Hack/launch their ventures.

The team has demonstrated strong execution, real traction, and the ability to attract top-tier builders to Polkadot. Let's keep working.

EasyA is a team that gives me a lot of confidence given the hard work they have been doing, however, I am also concerned with the numbers they are showing. I understand that the 126 projects shown are hackathon projects, which means that not many of these end up making it to production, however, the truth is that I have not come to visualize any of these projects getting out of there for the ecosystem in general.

We support the work the EasyA team has done. However, there should be a way to track better how these projects progress/move throughout the ecosystem. We view hackathons as "the first step in the funnel" for onboarding developers into the ecosystem.

Left my notes here: https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1560#3. I don't find the $1.2 million spent on EasyA justified. This all needs to be readjusted and reconsidered. Nay.

The biggest “win” EasyA is highlighting is Axal, a struggling 5-person startup that raised $2.5M in 2024 and, to date, has little to show for it ... basic software, a barebones non-responsive site, and no visible traction. It’s unlikely they’ll receive follow-on funding from a16z without real growth, so it’s no surprise they’re now pivoting to Polkadot if the treasury foots the bill. This is not a "win" as EasyA claims. This pattern is becoming familiar: inflated user numbers, vague success metrics, and startups with weak fundamentals suddenly rebranding as Polkadot builders when external funding dries up. It’s hard to shake the feeling that we’re subsidizing runway, not ecosystem impact. They also claim 1M app users (highly doubt they are real/active users), yet after 6M social impressions, only ~350 hackers showed up per event... even on campuses like Harvard with 35,000 students. From that, we got 63 dapps created, which sounds nice, but where are those builders or products now? There's no visibility, no sustained momentum, and likely a very low bar for what qualifies as a “dapp or solution.” The numbers don’t back the narrative, and it feels more like subsidizing startup survival than ecosystem growth.