This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance). Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The overuse of primary sources here makes me question if this is even notable? The content, tone and length aren't acceptable. Can we cut it down and rewrite it based on secondary sources or is this a WP:TNT? Widefox; talk 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping creator User:Uhooep Widefox; talk 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the usage of primary sources be inherently bad? I do believe it would be worth expanding on this project but this article is far from a disaster. 2A02:8106:9:6500:74C5:74DF:DFB:55C5 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC) K[reply]

Being a contributor to this page it is difficult to understand your criticism. Mainly created by community members this page is intended to give information on the Polkadot project and the ecosystem to come in the future. The Web 3 Foundation is a nonprofit as the driving power behind this. Being actively developed ATM Polkadot is one of the most interesting emerging technologies in the crypto world. I would love to help making this page better. Therefore it would be important to know what in your opinion can be improved on. MasterOfDesaster99 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means of advertisement and we don't care whether the subject is non-profit or not. We look at the subject's notability, first. We use metrics like the coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources to determine if the subject is notable or just another thing that exists. People interested in Polkadot should find some other website to host discussion of the subject because Wikipedia is not the place for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern over advertising on Wikipedia. However, the project has achieved some notability as a blockchain software protocol. It has recently received coverage/mention by a number of mainstream news sources (Forbes, Bloomberg, PC Magazine, Financial Post). It's among the top 10 crowdfunded projects of alltime. The technical specifications for the software has academic merit with citations in journals and conference proceedings on Google Scholar. Famously (infamously), it was a major victim of the Parity wallet hack (for which there is even further coverage of the Polkadot project from reputable media sources). Pdmcgillivray (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a project is a highly subjective matter though. Wikipedia is the means to give independent information about relevant topics. I want to contribute and want to make this page better and would highly appreciate your help in doing so. MasterOfDesaster99 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's several WP:SPA accounts here - all editors please note you must read and abide by WP:COI, and disclose per that. Widefox; talk 19:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article had two RSes, one of which was a single mention in Bloomberg and the other was an article on the ICO in TechCrunch.

I just cut a large slab of technical detail that was completely primary sourced. It shouldn't be restored without RSes.

As noted above, this article still needs RSes. Are there any? - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-17/ethereum-blockchain-killer-goes-by-unassuming-name-of-polkadot Coin (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to bring back some of the details that had been lost in previous versions, while restructuring a bit the lead section, removing some of the promotional tone in sentences, and bringing a couple more sources from non-crypto medias. There is definitely a lot more work to be done on this page - given that it is one of the largest cryptocurrencies, its notability deserves it a bit of love and attention 7804j (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Polka blog post graphic 002.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was advertising today on twitter for a writer to "improve" this article.[1] Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Atakan, I've been contacted by Polkadot Governance to improve the Polkadot article. Polkadot Governance is a decentralized system designed to enable its token holders to propose and decide on network upgrades, treasury funding, and protocol changes. It operates through OpenGov, a transparent process where decisions are made by token holders and community representatives.

I'd like to propose the following changes to the Concepts section of the article. As things stand right now, the section feels quite disjointed and doesn't adequately address the basic concepts of the Polkadot blockchain; instead, it mostly consists of concepts that have been thrown together without much cohesiveness. Some of the sources cited in the section are also either self-published directly by Polkadot or self-published by projects associated with them, and they don't contain relevant information to validate the claims in the text. Instead, I'm proposing a more structured Concepts section with a clear flow, starting with more basic blockchain concepts and progressing to more advanced but notable ones.

In some cases, I have cited arXiv articles instead of peer-reviewed articles, the most notable case being "Overview of Polkadot and its Design Considerations" [2]https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13456. In my opinion, this is one of the foundational papers on the Polkadot blockchain and explains several of its core concepts in detail. As of today, the article has been cited more than 140 times by other research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. I believe that, even though Wikipedia guidelines suggest arXiv articles should be used as a last resort when peer-reviewed articles aren't available, it would be a disservice to Wikipedia users not to include this article, as so many other sources cite it directly. To warn users and potential editors about this issue, I have used the following "primary sources template":

.

I'm not sure if this sufficiently covers the use of arXiv articles. Please advise if there is another, more suitable template I can use. Thanks in advance!

I've mostly tried to retain previous contributions. For example, the Multi-chain ecosystem and Sovereignty, shared security and interoperability subsections are mostly untouched (except in the case of Sovereignty, shared security and interoperability, which has been renamed "Design Principles" to be more concise). However, I've changed their order in the Concepts section within the additions I've made to maintain a more natural flow. Similarly, the Cross-Consensus Message Passing (XCMP) subsection was moved under a new subsection called "Consensus Mechanisms," where other protocols are also discussed so it doesn't feel disjointed from the rest of the Concepts section anymore, in my opinion.

I've found the comparison template a bit clumsy for submitting large changes, especially since the it doesn't seem to allow for inspecting the changes in a visual format, so I'm submitting my changes here again to be better viewed with the visual source format.

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Concepts == === Overview === Polkadot is a peer-to-peer network designed to connect multiple specialized blockchains, known as parachains, enabling them to share security and communicate seamlessly. The network employs a nominated proof-of-stake (NPoS) consensus mechanism, with validators and nominators securing the network and processing transactions.[28][29] Each parachain connects to Polkadot's central Relay Chain, which is responsible for maintaining consensus and finalizing transactions. The Relay Chain itself is lightweight, focusing exclusively on its core functions, without supporting smart contracts directly.[30] Polkadot nodes, called validators, participate in block production and finalization, securing the Relay Chain and overseeing parachain operations. Parachains communicate through the Cross-Consensus Message Passing (XCMP) protocol, which facilitates cross-chain communication.[31] Polkadot employs a unique scaling mechanism known as sharding through its parachain architecture. Instead of processing all transactions on a single blockchain, Polkadot allows multiple parachains to operate simultaneously. [32] Parachain slots are allocated through a process called parachain slot auctions, where developers bid using the native cryptocurrency, DOT. Projects that secure a slot can lease it for a specified period, allowing them to connect to the network and benefit from its shared security and interoperability.[33] Any Polkadot account can participate in governance by voting on proposals or nominating validators. Governance proposals cover a wide range of topics, including network upgrades, and treasury spending. DOT holders can vote directly on proposals through an on-chain voting mechanism or delegate their voting power to trusted representatives.[34] Staking DOT also plays a dual role in governance and network security. Validators and nominators are incentivized through staking rewards, distributed proportionally based on their contributions and performance. However, staking requirements can also act as a barrier for participants with limited resources, potentially centralizing power among larger holders.[35] === Parachains === Parachains are customizable blockchains that run in parallel or independently as solochains within the Polkadot network. These chains leverage the security and interoperability provided by Polkadot's Relay Chain while maintaining their unique features and governance structures. Parachain slots are allocated through auctions, where developers bid using Polkadot's native cryptocurrency, DOT.[36] === DOT === The DOT cryptocurrency is the native token of the Polkadot network. It serves multiple purposes: Governance: DOT holders can vote on proposals affecting the network. These proposals can range from runtime upgrades and treasury allocations to governance changes and parameter adjustments. Polkadot employs an on-chain governance system, allowing stakeholders to participate directly in decision-making through a categorized referenda process.[37] Governance proposals are categorized into tracks, such as small spender for minor treasury disbursements or runtime upgrades for technical changes to the network. Each track has distinct thresholds for approval and prioritization. Token holders can vote directly or delegate their voting power to representatives. [38] Staking: Validators and nominators stake DOT to secure the network, validate transactions, and produce new blocks. Validators are responsible for maintaining the Relay Chain by participating in consensus protocols, while nominators delegate their DOT to trustworthy validators. Staking rewards are distributed proportionally based on performance, but validators may be slashed (lose part of their stake) for malicious activity or prolonged inactivity.[39] Bonding: DOT is bonded (temporarily locked) to participate in parachain slot auctions, enabling projects to secure a slot on the network. Bonded DOT remains inaccessible for the duration of the lease, incentivizing developers and communities to commit long-term to the Polkadot ecosystem.[40] === Accounts and Addresses === Accounts in Polkadot are identified by unique cryptographic addresses derived from public-private key pairs. These addresses are essential for interacting with the network, transferring DOT, and participating in governance and . Polkadot requires accounts to maintain an existential deposit—a minimum balance necessary to keep an account active on the network. Accounts falling below this threshold are automatically reaped, meaning their storage is cleared.[41] There are several account types in Polkadot: User Accounts: Owned by individuals or entities, these accounts are primarily used for transferring DOT, participating in governance, and interacting with decentralized applications (dApps). On-Chain Entities: Validators and parachains are examples of on-chain entities that interact with the Relay Chain to perform network functions such as block validation and cross-chain communication.[42] Multisignature Accounts: These accounts require multiple signatures from designated participants to authorize transactions. They are often used by decentralized organizations or collaborative teams. [43] Proxy Accounts: Proxy accounts allow users to delegate specific actions, such as staking or governance voting, to a secondary account while maintaining control of their funds. [44] Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): DAOs leverage Polkadot’s governance tools to operate as on-chain entities, utilizing features such as multisignature wallets and voting modules for decentralized decision-making.[45] === Design Principles === Polkadot offers three fundamental properties to parachains: sovereignty, shared security, and interoperability. Sovereignty: Each parachain retains control over its governance and transaction processing. This autonomy enables parachains to define their own rules, optimize for specific functionalities, and operate without constraints from other parachains.[2] Shared Security: Polkadot’s Relay Chain provides cryptoeconomic security for parachains, allowing them to benefit from a shared pool of validators. This model aims to reduce the operational burden for parachains while maintaining high levels of security and decentralization.[2] Interoperability: Polkadot facilitates cross-chain data and asset transfers using its Cross-Consensus Messaging (XCM) protocol. This standard ensures communication between parachains and external blockchains, enabling use cases such as token transfers and cross-chain smart contract interactions.[46] === Multi-chain ecosystem === Polkadot is designed to enable interoperability among multiple blockchains by integrating them into a unified network. The protocol provides an open-source software development kit called Substrate SDK, allowing developers to build custom blockchains optimized for specific applications. These blockchains can operate independently as solochains or integrate into Polkadot’s ecosystem as "parachains," benefiting from shared security and cross-chain communication capabilities.[47] === Consensus mechanisms === Polkadot employs a hybrid consensus model combining two protocols: BABE (Blind Assignment for Blockchain Extension): This block production mechanism assigns validators to produce blocks in a pseudo-random manner, ensuring fairness and security.[48] GRANDPA (GHOST-based Recursive Ancestor Deriving Prefix Agreement): Responsible for finalizing blocks, GRANDPA allows multiple blocks to be finalized in a single round, enhancing throughput and reliability.[49] Cross-Consensus Message Passing (XCMP): XCMP is Polkadot's protocol for facilitating communication between parachains. It enables the transfer of arbitrary data across chains, supporting a wide range of applications, including token transfers, smart contract interactions, and more complex cross-chain operations.[50]

Nalbantatakan (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nalbantatakan (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal relies on several unreliable sources. WP:ARXIV cites are unreliable - when we don't have a reliable source, that does not mean 'should be used as a last resort', that means leave the information out. Other sites are crypto news (like moonbeam, also unreliable) and primary sources such as conference papers.

Overall the proposal dwells on unencyclopedic details and tends toward promotional wording. This is the kind of writing one would expect to see on the Polkadot project's own website, not on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, first of all thanks for the extended content templates, I was just trying to figure that out myself :)

As I've mentioned in the edit request "[...]the most notable case being "Overview of Polkadot and its Design Considerations" [2]https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13456. In my opinion, this is one of the foundational papers on the Polkadot blockchain and explains several of its core concepts in detail. As of today, the article has been cited more than 140 times by other research articles published in peer-reviewed journals." I believe this particular Arxiv article adds a plethora of information to the topic and deserves to be cited.

Your other comment "Other sites are crypto news (like moonbeam, also unreliable) and primary sources such as conference papers", there are a total of 3 citations like this, well 4 if you include the arxiv source, however 2 of these (the initial moonbeam citation) are not my contributions, I've kept them as to not disturb previous contributions on the same topic, these sources are only used in technical subjects

As to "Overall the proposal dwells on unencyclopedic details and tends toward promotional wording. This is the kind of writing one would expect to see on the Polkadot project's own website, not on Wikipedia.". If one were to visit Bitcoin or Ethereum articles, two blockchain platform Wikipedia entries that are very well written in my opinion, one would be quick to notice that I've attempted to structure the Concepts section quite similarly to them. Every subsection within are very far from promotional wording in my opinion and most actually merely summarize, and in some cases, directly quote the primary sources. As to sources being conference papers, Polkadot as a blockchain platform being relatively new is the main reason behind this, however, most of the sources themselves are relatively well cited and established in opinion, especially when their recency is taken into account. Nalbantatakan (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== References ==

Hi, my name is Atakan, I've been contacted by Polkadot Governance to improve the Polkadot article. Polkadot Governance is a decentralized system designed to enable its token holders to propose and decide on network upgrades, treasury funding, and protocol changes. It operates through OpenGov, a transparent process where decisions are made by token holders and community representatives.

As the previous request was denied on the grounds of promotional wording and source concerns (sources that are still cited in the article), I've decided to propose more limited changes to the section and also to remove the selfpublished sources (which I haven't put there to begin with).

The main changes are to introduce core concepts of the blockchain and to rename the Sovereignty, shared security and interoperability subsection to "Design Principles" to be more concise).

A visual code version of the changes can also be found here:

Visual code for proposed changes

== Concepts == === Overview === Polkadot is a peer-to-peer network designed to connect multiple specialized blockchains, known as parachains. The network employs a nominated proof-of-stake (NPoS) consensus mechanism, with validators and nominators securing the network and processing transactions.[11][12] Each parachain connects to Polkadot's central Relay Chain, which is responsible for maintaining consensus and finalizing transactions. The Relay Chain itself focuses exclusively on its core functions, without supporting smart contracts directly. Polkadot nodes, called validators, participate in block production and finalization, securing the Relay Chain and overseeing parachain operations. Parachains communicate through the Cross-Consensus Message Passing (XCMP) protocol, which facilitates cross-chain communication.[13] Parachain slots are allocated through a process called parachain slot auctions, where developers bid using the native cryptocurrency, DOT. Projects that secure a slot can lease it for a specified period, allowing them to connect to the network[14] === Design Principles === Polkadot offers three fundamental properties to parachains: sovereignty, shared security, and interoperability. Sovereignty: Each parachain retains control over its governance and transaction processing. This autonomy enables parachains to define their own rules, optimize for specific functionalities, and operate without constraints from other parachains.[2] Shared Security: Polkadot’s Relay Chain provides cryptoeconomic security for parachains, allowing them to benefit from a shared pool of validators. This model aims to reduce the operational burden for parachains while maintaining high levels of security and decentralization.[2] Interoperability: Polkadot facilitates cross-chain data and asset transfers using its Cross-Consensus Messaging (XCM) protocol. This standard ensures seamless communication between parachains and external blockchains, enabling diverse use cases such as token transfers and cross-chain smart contract interactions.[15] === Multi-chain ecosystem === Polkadot is designed to enable interoperability among multiple blockchains by integrating them into a unified network. The protocol provides an open-source software development kit called Substrate SDK, allowing developers to build custom blockchains optimized for specific applications.[16]

== References ==

Nalbantatakan (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]