Grants-Program VS polkadot

One of the most notable partnerships for Polkadot is with the Web3 Foundation, a Swiss non-profit organization that promotes the development and adoption of decentralized technologies. The Web3 Foundation was the organization that created Polkadot, and has provided funding for research and development to over 70 projects on the blockchain.

If you (or anyone else reading this) are interested in building it, that sounds like a cool project to apply for a Web3 Foundation Grant or via the Decentralized Futures program!

The Web3 Foundation Grants Program has reached the milestone of 600 projects funded. This is from a pool of over 1’500 applications from 54 different countries. https://grants.web3.foundation/

The project was build for the Web3 Foundation Grants Program. TPScore consists of two main parts:

Interested in building on Polkadot? Web3 Foundation offers an extensive grants program for technical development and research. https://grants.web3.foundation/

Reminder that Web3 Foundation Grants Program is looking for teams interested in building on Polkadot. https://grants.web3.foundation/

Add a sub-consensus mechanism (there is an RFP out for this)

Interested in building on Polkadot? Found a useful feature missing or a problem unsolved in the ecosystem? W3F u/Web3Foundation grants team has Requests for Proposals here https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/blob/master/docs/rfps.md

There are some Substrate-based chains, such as Aleph Zero, already using alternative consensus systems to have block times of around a second. There's also an RFP that I worked on last year looking for people to work on it for a W3F grant.

The W3F Grants team actually has a whole list of things we are looking for and would like to see in the ecosystem! https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/tree/master/rfps

Polkadot (6400 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot

I don't think asynchronous backing has any direct effect on the number of parachains, no (I mean, there likely is an effect, but it's not the goal and my understanding is that any effect on that would be minimal, although I'm not involved in the deep engineering here). It increases throughput, correct, by decreasing the time between blocks by not needing to do a "roundtrip" to the relay chain to build new blocks. See https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/issues/3779 for an overview.

"The 27 waiting day is unavoidable and a very important security measure to protect against certain attacks and vulnerabilities of PoS. I totally understand that it is annoying, but arguably it is for the benefit+security of the overall network, which includes you as well at the end of the day as DOT-holder." - from this GitHub discussion.

Ref: Kianenigma @ https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/issues/2418

Polkadot 0.9.37 has been released with MEDIUM upgrade priority. https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/releases/tag/v0.9.37

Specifically, it was this PR that changed it: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/pull/6230

Actually it looks like you can! It's just not recommended. This is from the official documentation: "Starting with runtime version v23 natively included in the client version 0.8.23, payouts can go to any custom address. If you'd like to redirect payments to an account that is neither the controller nor the stash account, set one up. Note that setting an exchange address as the recipient of the staking rewards is extremely unsafe.*

A particular validator sent out a LOT of dispute reports (i.e., saying that other validators did something incorrectly) last night (for reasons unknown). It looks like other nodes "choked" reading all of these disputes, and one subsystem died, stalling nodes but NOT killing the process. It's still being investigated, but you can look at the issue on Github to see it being discussed here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/issues/6412