Track: Polkadot Fellowship Treasury
Date: 12 Aug 2025
Proponent: 14DsLzVyTUTDMm2eP3czwPbH53KgqnQRp3CJJZS9GR7yxGDP
Beneficiary: 12zgSMDwF5xpzcksvEdDzcSFouFNroXGRffgnhogSk1kR7iS
Amount requested: 102,054 DOT (≈ $399,680 USD)
PVQ (PolkaVM Query), previously named XCQ, is now implemented with end-to-end demo. It standardizes cross-consensus (cross-chain) queries with a protocol, reference implementation, runtime components, SDK, docs, and a live demo. This request covers the remaining payment for the previously granted proposal (https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/proposals/831). An upfront tranche of 49,075.43 DOT (USD 334,400) was received; this proposal requests a one-time payout of 102,054 DOT to settle the remainder.
PVQ is a framework for querying data across chains. It is designed to integrate cleanly with PolkaVM and to operate alongside XCM or via runtime APIs and SDKs for off-chain clients. Goals:
All milestones from the original XCQ proposal are complete:
PVQ removes fragmentation for builders who need accurate, verifiable cross-chain data:
Requested payout: 102,054 DOT to the beneficiary above.
Rationale:
We intend to integrate PVQ into polkadot-sdk and integrate it into system parachains and relaychains. Early discussion: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/8251. We will submit a separate proposal for this integration.
Threshold
Thanks for the reply @Bryan Chen . I've already voted aye as this is the remainder of the payment for work that is already done and is approved.
For any future work, in-line with the treasury, let's submit a proposal before the work is done and get it approved, instead of retroactive. In there, we can also further discuss any details.
Resubmit of https://collectives.subsquare.io/fellowship/referenda/391 which failed to execute due to wrong track (Fellows instead Architects)
Updated DOT amount based on new Subscan DOT EMA7 Price ( USD ): 3.840751
Edited
In the fellowship meeting in Berlin, we had some conversations about the overlap between PVQ and runtime view functions, among a few concerns about breakage and if/where this approach is really useful. I don't have all the details in mind now, but my impression after that conversation was that think further before moving forward. Can you please provide a summary of what points you learned from that conversation, and how you are addressing them? I think we can find them in the notes taken by Anaelle.
Although, I realize this proposal is requesting payment for what was previously agreed upon, so my comment is only relevant for any upcoming work.
Thanks!
Edited