[Proposal: 16] Polkassembly OpenGov development - Moonbeam

Title - [Proposal: Fund the cost of development of Polkassembly for OpenGov on Moonbase and Moonbeam] [Status: Idea]

Abstract - Polkassembly team has worked on developing and migrating the governance frontend for Moonbase & Moonbeam to OpenGov from Gov1. Additionally multiple features have been launched to ease adoption of OpenGov.

Motivation - OpenGov is a critical change in the governance infrastructure and post Polkadot, Kusama & Moonriver network migration to OpenGov, Moonbeam team has done the same. Polkassembly supports Moonbeam networks’ governance and the team worked closely to help migrate the frontend for Moonbase & Moonbeam to OpenGov

Project Overview and Team Experience - Polkassembly is the primary governance forum for Polkadot & Kusama ecosystem. Moonbeam & ecosystem chains have been using Polkassembly for over a year for enabling community led governance for the parachains.

Rationale - OpenGov introduces an dynamic community led governance which eliminates the need for council and further democratises the governance mechanism.

Overall Cost - The development and migration is complete and the total cost is $18250
8000$ for Moonbase Work
3750$ For Moonbeam Work
3500$ for Notification/Alerts & Search Deployment
3000$ for Product Features mentioned in proposal like Threshold Curves, AI Summary, & Timeline Information & more.

Use of Treasury Funds - Moonriver and Moonbeam networks have been successfully migrated to OpenGov.

Full proposal Link: Moonbeam Proposal Link

Proposal will be submitted after feedback from the forum.


Hey how are you @Parambir , Thanks for the proposal, reading it I have some doubts regarding the requested funds of

Can you explain me if these are exclusive for Moonbeam? You will ask the same amount for all parachains that you support?

And most surely will get back with more questions, thank u :raised_hands:

1 Like

Hey @jose.crypto!
I am doing well, great to hear from you :slight_smile:

The notification & alerts are premium features that are chargeable for any chain that would like activating them.
At Polkassembly, you can control your search and alerts experience from any mircosite by following the steps mentioned in our docs for Notifications & Search!

These are one time charges for integration of these features to cover the development cost.

For the remaining features, they are part of our OpenGov Interface & are hence chargeable only for teams who would be migrating from Gov1 to OpenGov.

With regard to the amount charged - it will higher on a per chain basis for any other parachain we support. As Moonbeam, Moonriver & Moonbase have simultaneous deployments for these features across three chains, we provide a healthy discount on the integration.
Instead of 3x the cost it is roughly around 1.75x the cost for one individual chain in this case.

Please let me know in case of any follow up questions :pray:


Hi, I am definitely okay with this proposal, but I have some concerns about the Moonbeam testnet and whether it’s being used.
So far, I’ve received feedback that hasn’t been very positive.

1 Like

Hi @Parambir

I use Polkassembly a lot and appreciate the work! Curious if you can provide a high level breakdown for the Moonbeam/Moonbase costs?

Overall Cost - The development and migration is complete and the total cost is $24500
10000$ For Moonbeam Work
8000$ for Moonbase Work
3500$ for Notification/Alerts & Search Deployment
3000$ for Product Features mentioned in proposal like Threshold Curves, AI Summary, & Timeline Information & more.

Hey sir @blackk_magiik , i recommend check the doc proposal: Moonbeam Open Gov Development - Google Docs


@Parambir This refers to the $3000 for product features of opengov right?

I would agree with that, however regarding the implementation itself of opengov (10k per chain), given that they are really very similar (Moonbeam, moonriver, moonbase), to a point of only adjusting parameters (like template lvl)

Is the amount okay as if the all work were done again
I obviously value the work done by Polkassembly, but i don’t know if it’s the fairest thing on that occasion. If is really of that way

I’m simply looking for a better understanding of the entire process. Thank you very much for the answers

Hey @jose.crypto,

I understand your concerns. The quote is $30,000 for the entire opengov migration for the three chains. To make the invoicing easy, we split it three ways across the three chains as billing it in any other manner makes the process very complicated.

You are absolutely correct on identifying that after the first chain development for the second and third becomes easier. Hence, we request to evaluate that the invoicing is as per the total effort that would be required.

The other way may have been to bill the bulk of the entire cost upfront to Moonriver which would have been detrimental to its treasury

1 Like

Great job on Polkassembly, and love the search. After completion do you see foresee any maintenance costs, and if so, will you please give a detail of what they would cover, frequency, and an estimate? Thanks!

1 Like

Hey @Jim_CertHum,

Thank you for your feedback! :pray:

  • We will not be making any change in our maintenance costs

  • Any new features we launch will be proposed as a discussion before we enable it for the community with the pricing made public in advance

1 Like

@Parambir hey,

however it’s not really like you do the entire job 3 times

Since it is a template only modifying some parameters, I feel that it does not seem fair to pay the entire amount

Even some features apply to all UIs that you provide for parachains, like the feature of AI summary, seems like are re-usables on a template level

Maybe we can revaluate this?

and so far thanks again for taking the trouble to answer all the questions

hey @Parambir, Thanks for your proposal!

I respect and understand the significant contributions that Polkassembly makes to the ecosystem, so please don’t get me wrong. If I’m mistaken, please feel free to correct me.

regarding the costs, I don’t entirely agree. for example, OpenGov in Moonbase doesn’t seem to be as actively used, and I believe a discount would be appropriate.

concerning the Moonbeam migration to OpenGov, my understanding is that most of the work has already been carried out in Polkadot / Kusama / Moonriver. given that the process seems largely automated with only a few adjustments remaining, I question the fairness of charging the full amount.

IMO, many of these features and their associated costs have already been addressed by Polkadot / Kusama treasury. since these features were implemented there, it feels like you’re making tweaks rather than developing from scratch.

therefore, I believe that it might not be entirely fair to Moonbeam treasury to bear the costs associated with Notifications / Alerts / AI, especially when they potentially could be covered by the Polkadot / Kusama treasury


Even if it’s not being used, we need it for testing purposes i think.

I fully understand the purpose of Moonbase, and I didn’t say it wasn’t used

I also believe you are a very inteligent person.

please follow the forum guidelines and stay on topic: https://forum.moonbeam.network/t/faq-guidelines/5


Hey @jose.crypto @turrizt,

Addressing your concerns below

  1. Cost for Notifications, AI Summary, & other features -

Polkadot Treasury helps us subside the costs for any developments we offer for other teams. After figuring out the infrastructure, we split the costs billed to the treasury vs billed based on the business we are able to generate by selling our services to teams.

By charging a fraction of our costs to the treasury, we ensure we have a sustainable model where payments are done as per usage by partner teams and we can work on projects without the fear of them of having insufficient funds (we work on a retroactive funding model). It also ensures that the costs to scale deployments beyond Polkadot & Kusama are paid by the teams and not by Polkadot / Kusama.

Any custom deployments or deployments for partner chains are not funded by the treasury as of yet as we believe that would cause immense stress on the Polkadot Treasury and chains should pay for services they use.

Why do we need to charge slightly higher for Moonbeam, Moonriver & Moonbase - In summary, the backend is different for all of these.
Moonbeam moonriver are evm chains, the precompile data (votes/delegation) have to be handled separately which is not required for substrate based chains.

  1. How is cost split between Moonbeam, Moonriver and Moonbase?

Please note that even though we show that the cost is split equally across chains, the effort to make the same is evaluated first and billing is calculated. Then it is equally divided across the three.

For notifications & super search for example, the cost per chain is $2K per chain. For Moonbeam, Moonbase & Moonriver the total cost charges is $3.5K which ensures that teams are not being charges unfairly. These funds include lifelong maintenance of these features and future upgrades to Slack & Element alerts which are yet being developed.

With regard to the OpenGov transition cost, we had projected a $30K cost, which includes transitioning everything to OpenGov, voting features, technical and interface upgrades bundled in one. The cost is not 10K$ for Moonriver, Moonbase & Moonbeam each but rather a $30K package for all three chains, their reliability and upgrade.

It could not be billed upfront & together as we would have to charge Moonriver treasury roughly $25K and Moonbeam treasury $5K when we talk about just enabling it for Moonbeam after completing the development for Moonriver.

It also includes efforts required for showing delegated votes in vote history for proposals and managing ERC 20 based voting. We have to do custom development that originally was not done for substrate based chains.


Thank you for the detailed answer!

I have some feedback on the UI:

  1. when I try to unlock my OpenGov funds, I see:
    “You currently have no referenda locks”

this doesn’t seem right:

2023-09-24 132003

  1. Is it possible to move the “Settings” button to a more visible and easily accessible location? for example, next to the “Search” icon at the top of the page? I believe this could enhance navigation and the overall user experience

2023-09-24 133136

2023-09-24 133350

  1. could you clarify whether the list of events in the “Upcoming Events” list is clickable? ideally, user should be able to click on any event from this list and be redirected to it

It might also be more intuitive if new events were displayed from top to bottom, instead of from bottom to top as it currently are

please check the “News” section It seems there’s an issue as the news from 2021/2022 is displayed there

  1. when a user has already delegated a specific track to a delegate, they are unable to vote. however, Polkassembly displays an unclear error. It would be better if it notified the user that they cannot vote because they’ve delegated their voting power for that track

Thank you for this detailed feedback @turrizt!

Point 1 - Being checked now & will be fixed in the next few hours. also, making a better interface for this

Point 2- Yes yes! We are due to take this live super soon, early this week mostly!

Point 3 - Ser, could you please check this once again or share your browser name. It is sorted in descending order and clickable for me already.

Events also seem to be working for me

Point 4 - Fixing this rightaway, should be live this week

Really grateful for your feedback & feel free to share any adhoc feedback to feedback.polkassembly.io
We would love to take all your opinions and deliver the best experience

If this were on Polkassembly platform, we would be tipping you for it as well :wink:
Feature being worked on!

1 Like

oh, awesome thanks for the quick response, really appreciate it! :heart:

I’m using Mozilla Firefox. I just checked, and it seems that the news has been updated, but the list of events still starts from July ( In your screenshot, it also starts from July. It seems to me that the latest news should be displayed at the top of the list)

what I mean is that the list isn’t clickable. yes, I can click on the calendar and select a date, but it would probably be more convenient if we could click on a specific event from the list

1 Like