This grant is presented as a scalability solution to reduce Ethereum gas costs, but TX on Polkadot cost DOTs too. There’s no free lunch. TX on Ethereum are here now and work. Users can choose to pay them as they want and it’s relatively simple (albeit expensive and slow). On Polkadot the fees are unknown. Every application that enables state sharing between parachains has to pay DOTs to the relaychain to process the tx that transmits state data. Every bridge to external blockchains like Ethereum also requires DOTs to interact with. If your project is successful, it would require users, devs, or the DAOs themselves to purchase ETH and DOTs to use the system.
In addition, the moto of Aragon is “unstoppable organizations”. On Polkadot though, DOT holders can vote to remove any parachain at any time they want. Censorship (curation) is built into the governance protocol. Often times this is a good thing for the system as a whole, but it does not allow for “unstoppable organizations.” To take this even further, AFAIK services that transmit state between parachains or bridge to other blockchains are private 3rd party projects. They are under no obligation to process anyone’s tx if they don’t want to. They say they will, and economically they probably would, but if something contentious comes up or they decide it’s not profitable to serve certain customers there’s nothing forcing them to treat all tx the same. I think Polkadot is a brilliant piece of software, and I think this model makes a lot of sense for a lot of businesses and projects, but it doesn’t allow for “unstoppable organizations.”
Also in the grant you said:
- “We want to focus on exploring the ways how this real-world DAOs can use Aragon platform and how this could help to monetise the Aragon platform and support the ANT.”
AFAIK ANT is supported by real use within the Aragon community. Why does ANT need to be “monetized” and what does that even mean? Can you please be a little more specific with your intentions here?