The KILT proposal pertains to the development of a cross-chain identity protocol (DIP) that promises to create a bridge between the KILT protocol and other parachains in the Polkadot ecosystem. This protocol will allow for standardised, seamless identities across all chains and aims to make the Polkadot ecosystem more accessible for end users.
From a purely technical perspective, there seems to be widespread agreement that this project presents a unique opportunity to enhance interoperability and provide a more unified identity system, further cementing Polkadot’s role as a network of interconnected blockchains. Moreover, with the emphasis on privacy and individual identity in the blockchain world, the development of a robust, versatile, and regulatory-compliant identity system could position Polkadot as a leader in this area.
The proposal aims to develop a natively interoperable pallet that other parachains can opt into, broadening the DID (Decentralized Identity) narrative across the whole Polkadot ecosystem. In theory, this might enhance Polkadot’s overall value proposition and help attract more users to the platform.
However, the proposal has been met with mixed reactions due to the funding method. The plan to draw from the Polkadot treasury for the development of this project has raised several concerns. Many have argued that this appears like a basic functionality or core feature for KILT that should be covered by their own development budget. The primary concern is whether the KILT protocol, which already has its own token and ecosystem, should be using funds from the Polkadot treasury for this development.
Furthermore, some critics believe that the treasury should prioritize infrastructure development and fostering new ideas and projects, especially those without their own sources of funding. The concern is that the use of treasury funds in this manner may set a precedent that could potentially be exploited in the future.
On the other hand, advocates for the proposal argue that funding this initiative will contribute to Polkadot’s overall growth, given the potential impact on user experience and the network’s interoperability. They posit that the KILT team has shown a track record of delivering useful, functioning software that attracts users and clients, justifying the use of treasury funds.
A key point raised in favour of the proposal is the expectation that it will draw significant user traffic to the Polkadot ecosystem. MEWE, in partnership with Frequency, has committed to transitioning 20 million users from WEB2 to WEB3 using the Polkadot infrastructure. The cost to user acquisition ratio, particularly if only a fraction of these users become active participants, can be seen as a reasonable trade-off.
In summary, the KILT proposal presents both potential rewards and risks. It offers significant technical and adoption enhancements for the Polkadot ecosystem but raises concerns about the appropriate use of treasury funds and the potential implications for future funding decisions. It is important that stakeholders carefully weigh these considerations before making a decision.
