Make Interlay Great Again

I don’t have any suggestions, so I will simply vote nay as I do not agree with this proposal. Given the current challenges with INTR adoption, requesting 6,133,296 INTR is substantial—it would place you among the top 15 INTR holders (https://interlay.subscan.io/account_list)). Many investors have put tens of thousands into building such positions.

I agree that requesting 6 mill interlay is substantial. I honestly dont know what the future holds for INTR (somewhat a bit bleak from what I can see) but requesting such a large amount may not be be a good thing considering many early investors have already staked thousands of INTR and it is now sitting below a cent :(. I wouldn't want outside parties gaining control of interlay governance at such a low price for potential malicious intent down the track. I honestly have no suggestions either. Im purely going on feelings and a hunch from the vibes im getting in discord. Happy for others to make comment - please influence me why I should change my position on this.

I am forced to decline because the team has not provided all the necessary legal documents on the website and does not grant access to the code on GitHub.

This could indicate that the author will receive INTR tokens and disappear with them.

If I am wrong, the team can fix these issues and relaunch the voting. But for now, I am strongly against it. So far, it looks like a scam.

The following documents must be provided:

1. Terms & Conditions – Legal details of the company, liability limitations, and service usage rules.

2. Privacy Policy – Data collection and processing regulations, including KYC/AML compliance.

3. SAFT Agreement / Token Sale Agreement – Legal framework for token sales and investor rights.

4. AML/KYC Policy – User verification procedures and compliance with global regulations.

5. DAO Legal Wrapper Documentation – DAO governance rules, token distribution, and membership terms.

6. Company Details & Contacts – Full legal name, registration address, business identifiers (e.g., Tax ID, LEI Code), and contact information.

Until these documents are available, I consider the project unreliable.

Here is an example of implementation:
https://ibb.co/v6nDGvwp
https://ibb.co/dv9xZwM
https://ibb.co/xqgJF4XJ

A request for 6,133,296 INTR tokens, which is $36,800 today at a rate of $0.006 per token.

I am not ready to send them to a completely unknown wallet that just made some promises in text. We haven't seen the product code. We haven't seen the smart contract code either. We also haven't seen the development trends, the number of developers, and so on.

We don't even know if this is a legal company or just some anonymous enthusiast.

If it's a company, where is it registered and under what number?

I want to ensure reliability before I start distributing tokens from the treasury.

The reliability of a crypto project is largely determined by its transparency and adherence to legal norms. On one hand, the absence of necessary legal documentation and closed access to the source code are serious “red flags” that may indicate potential fraud. If the team does not provide documentarily verified information, does not disclose company details, and does not demonstrate openness (for example, by publishing code on GitHub), the risk of losing funds increases significantly. On the other hand, if all the necessary documents, details of the legal entity, and source code are available, the situation may be more favorable. However, until the project demonstrates such transparency, it is wise to approach it with caution.

Additionally, to conduct a deeper analysis of the project’s reliability, the following aspects should be considered:

1. Team Reputation Check. Reliable projects typically have well-known developers with proven experience in the crypto industry, active public profiles (on LinkedIn, Twitter, GitHub), and a history of successful launches. The absence of such information—or its anonymity—may be a sign that a fraudulent scheme is hidden behind the facade.

2. Smart Contract Audit. An independent audit of the code, performed by reputable auditors (such as CertiK, Quantstamp, or Hacken), is an important indicator of security. If an audit is absent or done superficially, it should alert investors.

3. Realism of Promises and Transparency of Tokenomics. Projects that promise guaranteed returns or an extremely rapid increase in token value often use flashy and unrealistic statements to attract investments. A well-developed tokenomics model should be clear, detailed, and supported by a concrete development plan (road map). Overblown promises may serve as a warning signal.

4. Legal Verification of the Company. The availability of information about a registered legal entity, complete contact details, and legally significant documents (such as Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, and SAFT Agreement) indicates that the project aims to operate within the law. If such data is missing or appears templated, it is another reason to doubt the team’s intentions.

5. Communication with Investors and Support. Reliable projects actively engage with their community, hold AMA sessions, regularly publish progress reports, and promptly answer questions. A lack of feedback or a reluctance to provide information may indicate internal issues.

6. Analysis of External Sources. It is recommended to search for independent reviews, testimonials, and publications about the project within the crypto community. Materials such as checklists for identifying fraudulent projects can help form an objective opinion.

Collectively, these factors help reduce the risk of encountering fraudulent schemes in the cryptocurrency sector. If even one of these points raises doubts, it is wise to exercise caution and thoroughly analyze the project before investing funds. Reliability in the crypto industry is built on transparency, openness, and adherence to regulatory requirements—and the absence of these is often the first sign of a potential scam.

************** POLKALOTTERY OFFICIAL STATEMENT ******************

First and foremost, we want to thank everyone who took the time to engage in this discussion, share their perspectives, and vote on the proposal. The strength of the Polkadot ecosystem lies in its collaboration and interoperability, and it has been great to explore ways in which we could contribute to Interlay’s growth.

That said, after careful consideration, we have to acknowledge that the current token instability makes it impossible to move forward at this time. Since the debate began approximately 1 month ago, the token has dropped by 37% compared to the initial calculations, repeatedly breaking all-time lows. This level of volatility makes it difficult to ensure the financial sustainability of the proposal & AirDrop, and we believe it is in everyone’s best interest to revisit this idea when conditions are more favorable.

Despite this, our mission remains the same: to help strengthen and revitalize networks that need further development and token burns to regain momentum.We are fully operational on ACALA, Sora Network, and the Polkadot Relay Chain, and we hope to continue fostering growth across the ecosystem.

While an agreement wasn’t possible this time, we are confident that there will be future opportunities to collaborate, and we look forward to crossing paths again. Let’s keep building together! 🚀

The Team Polkalottery https://polkalottery.io/

************** POLKALOTTERY OFFICIAL STATEMENT ****************

There have been many great replies. But really I can't vote Aye on anything which leverages Trumpian tropes. I just vote Nay on principal at that point.