{"data":{"proposalCid":"QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346","choices":["Nay"],"remark":"A resounding nay.\n\n1. First and foremost, the proposing entity demonstrates zero track record in blockchain software development and delivery. The proposal also lists no past work in the broader field of software development by the proposer. $330K for an MVP by a person/company with no prior demonstration of merit in a highly challenging technical domain simply doesn't make sense.\n2. The proposal states that the Android and iOS apps are going to be built with Flutter, which requires developers to code in Dart, while the detailed document states that the apps are going to be built using PlutoFramework, which requires using C# on .NET. If this is not a contradiction but a deliberate decision, the reasons for the switch should have been addressed in the document.\n3. Also regarding the development of the iOS and Android applications, the proposal cites zero past working experience, personnel, or any examples of previously delivered work in the field of mobile application development.\n4. The proposal states that smart contract development costs were dropped from $140K in the rejected proposal down to $70K, stating that \"the previous budget was 140K - but we will start with Moonbeam here,\" with zero explanation of how the costs could drop simply by deciding to build on Moonbeam.\n5. Also following the previous concern, the budgeting lacks sufficient granularity. There are broad categories such as Backend Development and API Integrations, but no detailed information as to why these were considered separately, and what goes into each line item.\n6. There isn't sufficient information on how the proposer plans to tackle data privacy challenges on a technical level. There is no prior research or development by the proposer referred to in the proposal.\n7. Lastly, the initial document for the rejected proposal cites a tweet by Vitalik Buterin that refers to an article by Mozilla Foundation on poor data privacy practices by car manufacturers. It is a known fact that data privacy is an issue in this field, but again, the proposal provides zero explanation on what past experience the proposer is planning to rely on solving the serious issue of data privacy using blockchain technology, other than a list of buzzwords in the original document that fail to address the complex technical architecture (a clear threat model, Sybil resistance, protection of identifiers) required to back such a solution. Also, the one week allocated to finalize such a complex technical architecture is naïve at best.\n\nIn summary, the proposer should demonstrate skills and merit on a smaller budget, and ideally first address the technical challenges through a period of R&D and report back to the community before embarking on a budget and complexity of this size.","voterNetwork":"polkadot","remarkType":"markdown","version":"4","timestamp":1754810217},"address":"15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL","signature":"0x50bac719119a81d48caac4a30902a9720d1245ce7b88382385989106aa31c03b4095a131bfdeab31c6c9c5f80f839d6a1cd4052a89278cc720c992a075a0cf8d","version":"2"}