[BS] DOT #1587 - Snowbridge 2025/2026 Milestone Payouts

[BS] DOT #1587 - Snowbridge 2025/2026 Milestone Payouts

End

active

Description

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1587

Snowbridge is a trustless bridge in the Polkadot ecosystem that has been live for almost a year with no on-chain issues. It has become critical to the Polkadot ecosystem and is the longest-running and most complex public goods project outside of Parity. This proposal covers the next year of spends for the final 12 milestone payments and team incentives from June 2025 to June 2026. It also renews the insurance and bug bounty programs for further incentive alignment.

Key points:

Snowbridge has a total value locked of around $63 million.
There are about 24 ecosystem integrations with parachains, wallets, apps, and other services across the Polkadot ecosystem.
The team has shipped many features and improvements for Snowbridge over the last year, including cost and performance improvements, developer tooling for integrations, and a major re-architecture into Snowbridge V2.
The proposal includes a total payment of 254,064 DOT and 4,062,500 USDC, covering milestone completion bonuses, successful operation incentives, and insurance and bug bounty payments.

Appendants

1

#1

13d ago

🟢 2 • 🔴 2 • ⚪️ 3
6-member quorum not met.
Vote #1: NAY
10 available members.
No CoI reported. DV delegation exercised.
https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/26413980-2
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1587#5

Cast your votesingle

Votes·10

167Y...TY9F

167Y...TY9F

167YoKNriVtP4Nxk9F9GRV7HTKu5VnxaRq1pKMANAnmmTY9F

Nay

# 2

I find the ask exorbitant. I will like to know why doesn't the dev team look for other ways to fund it, as other chains that are connected through the bridge, polkadot can front some of the cost, a fraction, but not that ask. They need to deal with liquidity, to make the bridge useful, otherwise why have it in the first place.

1xzc...1bX6

1xzc...1bX6

1xzcLSwo7xBFkJYZiL4EHaqFpuPTkH641E3V43W4cuk1bX6

Abstain

# 3

We feel partial. On the one hand, the ask looks pretty high. Conversely, Snowbridge can play a significant role in strengthening the Polkadot <> Ethereum narrative.

1ZSP...vx6w

1ZSP...vx6w

1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w

Aye

# 1

I believe the team has gone above and beyond in helping to bring adoption to this in the ecosystem, and the costs, while high, have been expected given they were generally laid out in past proposals. At the current time, due to the lack of other bridges I believe we should fund this, however improvements (especially liquidity) need to be made to make this more usable. In the future, it should be competitive with other bridges in order to continue to recieve funding.

14Gn...YLEh

14Gn...YLEh

14Gn7SEmCgMX7Ukuppnw5TRjA7pao2HFpuJo39frB42tYLEh

Abstain

# 3

I am really divided on this situation. I think Snowbridge is very useful for the ecosystem, helping Polkadot to achieve significant growth. However, I see the requested amount really too high. More than $5 million in this proposal, seems to me a very high amount. I prefer to abstain.

14gM...deVb

14gM...deVb

14gMJV95zwxUsFEZDSC8mtBVifS6SypKJkfBKANkMsLZdeVb

Nay

# 2

The ask is too high and I have concerns how polkadot balance supports between commercial bridges like hyperbridge, darwinia and Snowbridge.

12s6...nE8h

12s6...nE8h

12s6UMSSfE2bNxtYrJc6eeuZ7UxQnRpUzaAh1gPQrGNFnE8h

Abstain

# 3

While we think Snowbridge plays a crucial role in Polkadot, we also think that the ask is too high. Abstain.

15fT...yBzL

15fT...yBzL

15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL

Aye

# 1

It looks like the amount was agreed on through the previously approved proposals. I agree that the ask is high given the state of the treasury, but I think the treasury should be reliable, and honor ongoing contracts as long as promises are being delivered.

12Kt...DCoJ

12Kt...DCoJ

12KtA8mtfsK1CyQb4utLiwG3ao22z77w2cM2GqnaL2RiDCoJ

Abstain

# 3

a few years ago, everyone was charging a lot for things, but times change. it feels a bit off to pack a proposal with multiple future payment terms (which are probably confusing to most) and then expect to keep cashing in for years if that one reference gets through. that said, snowbridge team is valuable and does good work, so i would prefer to support them if the ask was indeed fair. i think the real question we should be asking is: is the treasury getting a fair deal today? that’s tough to answer without clarity on what’s behind the $156k per month

13ED...KQbF

13ED...KQbF

13EDmaUe89xXocPppFmuoAZaCsckaJy3deAyVyiykk1zKQbF

Aye

# 1

Cost is high but is aligned with the future of where Polkadot is headed in our opinion.

12Hi...E9N3

12Hi...E9N3

12His7t3EJ38tjdBbivUzWQeaNCLKfMqtKp1Ed3xHMyCE9N3

Aye

# 1

While I understand the concerns and objections from fellow DAO members about the cost but one of the foundations that OpenGov rests on is that it works without trust. In my opinion, in an ideal world, we would have a system to track objective milestones and send payments out based on that but we're not there yet. In my opinion, the only reason to block this payment is whether the milestones have been delivered or not and they have been delivered as far as I can tell and I don't really any argument in the contrary. It may be a tough ask on the treasury but this is what was agreed on and the team has delivered, I think it would cause unrepairable damage to the ecosystem to push developers out this way, by nickel and diming them.

Discussions·0

No current comments

Information

Snapshot

IPFS

Members

11

Timestamp

Created

May 30 2025 19:48

Start date

May 30 2025 00:00

End date

Jun 29 2025 00:00

Results

Voters

10

one-person-one-vote

Aye

4 VOTE

Nay

2 VOTE

Abstain

4 VOTE

Product

Resources

Social Links

Contact

© 2025 OpenSquare. All Rights Reserved.