The considerable effort invested in these initiatives is recognised. However, there are substantial reservations about the proposal presented that motivate a vote of objection (NAY). These objections focus on the transparency of participation and the lack of verifiable impact metrics:

1. Lack of Clarity in the Sponsorship Structure

There is a lack of clear documentary evidence defining whether the event presented was exclusively sponsored by Polkadot or whether it was structured as a collaboration with multiple protocols.

This doubt is based on the track record of the organising team, which has demonstrated that it runs events in co-organisation with other relevant blockchains (such as Avalanche, Chainlink, Arbitrum, among others). It is imperative to clarify the nature of Polkadot's sponsorship and its position within the co-financing and brand positioning structure.

2. Lack of Proven Effectiveness and Return on Investment (ROI)

Despite claims about Polkadot's participation in past activities carried out by this team, to date, no evidence has been presented to demonstrate the tangible effectiveness of these events.

Effectiveness must be quantifiable and translate into concrete results for the Polkadot ecosystem, such as:

The materialisation of new agreements and partnerships.

The development and adoption of specific use cases.

Verifiable growth metrics.

I agree with Ezio's opinions.