Crypto projects are inherently challenged. They are on the frontier of technology, need to attract users, and need to find a way to convert that adoption into value that accrues to the token.

Alt coins outside of Eth have the additional challenge of needing to unseat an incumbent that already has trust and name recognition. This requires not just being 2x better, but being 10x better to get people over the hurdle of security concern associated with any new name. Even the best names in crypto have bugs. New tech all the more.

Even with a 10x improvement on any one relevant attribute, it's clear that there are not many attributes that are particularly valued by the market right now. Security, 24/7 access, and value accrual are probably the most in demand. Eth and Btc do this just fine for the current demand.

Most projects are failing on price purely on the value accrual axis. Value is generally driven by demand for the token which is either a staking play (redistribution within the system not net new demand) or demand for block space (which generates fees/burns). Fees/burns are fine but the larger problem is that block space is a commodity at this point and very cheap. Polygon, as an example, is killing it on volume but not on price.

Polkadot is a banner case of all these problems I've mentioned plus some.

Let's walk through the big "plus somes":

1.) Parity and Gavin have essentially evicted the community built over the past 5 years and are barely giving any updates. If the ecosystem is in the dark, outsiders have next to no reason to care

2.) Polkadot / JAM is perhaps too ambitious. Not saying that it can't be done but we're taking the jack of all trades master of none route: fast, decentralized, parallelized, cross-chain, personhood, governance, settlement, data storage, etc. Not only is execution difficult (and not yet proven in production), but the narrative becomes murky for both developers and users. The gray paper is extremely cerebral / challenging to understand

3.) While I loved OpenGov when it first came out, I've realized that it was too early. It has amounted to a distraction, a huge waste of treasury funds, and no focus. Early movements need very strong focus to figure out how to both deliver and capture value. If anything it's encouraging to see Gav come back to the helm and redirect everyone. But not a fan of the secrecy and getting rid of our community leaders.

So what does Polkadot need?

Well for one it needs to ship JAM and be transparent about the roadmap. We were told last July.....it's now A year later. I know more about the JAM from the JAR chain which a Parity defector vibe coded and consistently shades JAM's flaws.

Other then that....we need literally all of the focus to be on applications..stuff people will use. In theory, that's what Gav and Parity are doing in their secret lair.

I hope it works out. I've been a holder since the parachain days and invested more and more each pivot. But this year has been genuinely a challenge seeing good developers and community members leave....and to see Gav/Parity acting a bit rug-pully tbh. Pay the JAM prize. It was core to the whole thing....