{"data":{"proposalCid":"QmNa4hDt1d8DyrsX5mCZ3sQAZQn1971JDkFQCcqs7cbfxf","choices":["Nay"],"remark":"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. ","voterNetwork":"polkadot","version":"4","timestamp":1748260571},"address":"12KtA8mtfsK1CyQb4utLiwG3ao22z77w2cM2GqnaL2RiDCoJ","signature":"0xb40a6a335b2cb1c4f983cadf975b62d688db02462ecd728c75bd89bf884f8471182b77b4f4acae0654ffd5156c6990283bc6a4afffa937e76e195f67a4501281","version":"2"}