<details>
<summary>Problem Statements</summary>

<details>
<summary>Crypto Native End Users</summary>

* It is hard to utilise the functionality of the Polkadot ecosystem -> because
* It uses new wallets that are different from industry standards -> because
* Differing addresses per each parachain
* More complex wallet system as Polkadot has fragmented parachains which have lots of benefits but ->
* There is not enough abstraction that can provide an intuitive user interface and experience for non-technical users
* Users have few tools that are non-developer oriented for understanding and accessing the functionalities, benefits and the data of Polkadot and it’s parachains. -> because
* It’s hard to develop UIs with the APIs that the ecosystem provides -> because
* It is fragmented, composed of multiple implementations
* Lack of maintenance
* DOT & Parachain tokens are hard to buy and use -> because
* There are not enough On-ramp / Off-ramps for coins that are not DOT -> because
* Each parachain requires independent integrations that make it difficult for CEX to handle fragmented coins -> and
* They focus on volume and can not handle the workload of integrating several different parachains.
* There are not enough bridges from other blockchains -> and
* Fragmented bridges on EVM supported parachains because bridge hub is not active yet
* The dApps of Polkadot are not bringing in users -> because
* People do not think they can make money or use Polkadot -> because
* There are no unique or attractive use-cases -> because
* Building and deploying dApps on Polkadot is harder than other ecosystems
* Development is mostly being focusing on infrastructure
* Polkadot and blockchains are confusing and hard to understand the benefits that they provide

</details>

<details>
<summary>Developers</summary>

* Onboarding Developers into the ecosystem is hard -> because
* There is no good landing page that provides a clear developer path
* Documentation is unorganised, fragmented and partially outdated
* There are too many concepts in the architecture which are constantly evolving -> and
* The USP of Polkadot is not clear enough to bring in developers
* Language is too sophisticated to for developers, in particular non-native English speaker
* XCM is too complex
* Rust + Substrate is too difficult
* Because most developers did not go to university (CS) to learn the concepts necessary for Rust
* Fragmented tools make integration and development hard
* People have not unified yet on a criteria as it is a growing ecosystem -> and
* Ecosystem developers do not prioritise tools -> because
* People do not want to build tools because they do not see the benefits and value propositions
* Polkadot has not proven itself with a valuable product for developers to want to be part of it
* It is hard to bring on new Parachains and dApps -> because
* It is not clear where to “deploy a contract on Polkadot” -> because
* It is not clear how Polkadot works ->
* And it’s benefits as a builder -> because
* Interoperability is not trivial
* Blockchain benefits are not clear for the developers base
* The narrative of Polkadot feels too low level and not every developer is interested in the architecture, they are mostly interested in services. ->
* Just build something viable that attracts users.
* There is not DOT based contracts parachain
* Frontend tools and integrating options are not up-to-date with competitors
* There is not anyone using Smoldot

</details>

</details>

<details>
<summary>Problems Research & Validation</summary>

* [dot forum: underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem/4292)
* Tooling is fragmented, "zoo of tools". [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem/4292/2?u=peterw)
* Push from parachain to dApp narrative. After decentralization there is no one to push that narrative.. Maybe happens organically?
* The treasury should *not* support funding for block explorers, rpcs, etc. Rather, more companies need to exist (like Tanssi) that provides these in an innovative way [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem/4292/3)
* More standardization.. In particular with interopability
* Totem Kapex ran out of money.. They claim running a parachain was too expensive. [link 1](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/205), [link 2](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem/4292/4).
* Kraken requires that chains have implemented decentralized governance [link](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/205#eZK2oG1SccKMaLTcSk7Y)
* Listing a token on a dex when there is no liquidity or market makers makes coins go to 0.. So, CEX are necessary [link](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/205)
* To list on a CEX usually requires paying significant fees [link](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/205)
* Infrastructure is way too expensive for parachain teams [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/underestimated-developer-cost-in-polkadot-ecosystem/4292/5)

* [developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/25)
* Polkadot ecosystem does not seem to care about users and the app developers.. Too much focus on parachains
* Parachain developers feel unsupported or heard by Parity
* Treasury funding is uncertain
* Parity focuses too much on Enterprises instead of smaller startups.
* VCs do not like funding Polkadot projects.
* [personal observation] Parachain teams will need to focus efforts on getting users and dApps.. This is costly and difficult
* Substrate is over-complicated and contains too much "technical-debt". Substrate needs to be refactored [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/2?u=peterw)
* No easy place to put new pallets
* Parity creates APIs or tools which are are not stable, causing it to be useless.
* "Polkadot network is owned by Parity engineers" [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/16?u=peterw).
* XCM is far too complex [link] (https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/20?u=peterw)
* Building on top of parachains can be very complex [link] (https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/20?u=peterw)
* It is hard for small developers to build common-good tools, especially with the whale-dominated treasury. [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/22?u=peterw)
* Developers built low-level tools that no one wants to use.. They want "fancy UIs" [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/23?u=peterw)
* The risks of developers are undermined while Parity focuses on building the best tech [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/25?u=peterw)
* There is a lack of a clear user journey for new developers, especially those not building parachains
* Polkadot leadership needs to focus more on the application layer
* dApp developers do not receive enough support. [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/30?u=peterw)
* dev ex. needs to be improved. Better frontend libraries need to be made, more focus on app devs. [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/31?u=peterw)
* The community relies too much on Parity and says "Parity should fix X" [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/31)
* Polkadot community is too blockchain-centric, "tech will fix it" mindset [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/33?u=peterw)
* "We for sure need to improve quite a lot on using light clients more for communicating with the chains", too much reliance on Parity from community [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/34?u=peterw)
* Lack of connections to VC network, fragmented selling propositions,
* No user adoption because there are no good apps, app devs are second-class, devex painful, parachains are not always welcoming to devs, lack of contract support / documentation / tooling, XCM too complex for app-layer [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/46?u=peterw)
* summary post: [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/47?u=peterw)
* Tanssi adds more complexity as it requires users to know what RPC nodes are, collators, etc. Abstractions need to be "non-leaky", i.e., don't expose the underlying functionality [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/52?u=peterw)
* Precise specifications are highly needed [link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/developer-experience-must-be-our-1-priority/3957/53?u=peterw)

</details>

<details>
<summary>How Might We...</summary>

* How might we improve fragmented tooling to ease development efforts for Polkadot / Substrate developers?
</details>

<details>
<summary>Ideas</summary>

* use smoldot for collecting data from chain without using block explorer. Find something quickly on-chain. Maybe creating a website to be a (decentralized) central hub for accessing data on-chains
* Create a single tool (like hardhat or truffle) that utilizes the existing tools in the ecosystem..
* Provide support for tor. [Link](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/bringing-more-onions-into-polkadot/4358/9)
* Company that can be contracted to write tutorials and documentation for new features
* If all chains allow DOT to be used to pay fees, there could be an app that utilizes several chains "under the hood" all with a single token
* Metaplex on Polkadot
* Take over design + maintenance on useink!
* Offer service to write treasury / grant proposals for fee
* Coretime monitoring and procurement tool
* automate fuzzer for teams
* Offer services to maintain tooling
</details>

<details>
<summary>Solutions</summary>

</details>