| Report Date | Date of submission (2026/01/03) |
| Submitted by | Branislav Kontur |
Bulletin, Bridges, XCM, System Parachains, governance, benchmarking, testing, integration, IPFS, BitswapThis summary outlines my activities, contributions, and collaborations during the reporting period.
At the beginning of the reporting period, I provided limited support for the Asset Hub Migration (AHM), mainly through PR reviews and handling last-minute issues. This included, for example, updating weights for the Polkadot runtimes [1], fixing minor issues [2], and reporting problems identified during benchmarking [3].
I switched my focus fully to the Bulletin Chain. The Bulletin Chain is designed to provide ephemeral storage and to support one of the initial Proof-of-Personhood (PoP) features, while also being extensible to other Web3 applications and use cases.
My work has focused on leading and supporting the delivery of the Bulletin Chain, including issue handling, improvements, releases, planning, and coordination of deployments. This naturally resulted in less direct coding and fewer PRs from my side, and more emphasis on planning and design. Examples include issues I created and linked (issues), as well as (smaller PRs). We successfully launched the Bulletin Chain as a solochain (https://polkadot.js.org/apps/?rpc=wss%3A%2F%2Fbulletin.rpc.amforc.com#/explorer) and are also prototyping a Polkadot parachain-like deployment. I created and managed the work enabling the chain to run as a parachain (PR #10662), which consists of three sub-PRs. Thanks also to Iulian for one of the sub-PRs and to Basti for review and merge support.
In addition, we are working on providing various examples and integrations, including IPFS, Bitswap, and smoldot (smoldot PR #2189). Beyond this, I deepened my expertise in IPFS/Bitswap, identifying protocol gaps and reporting issues to Dmitry Markin, as well as contributing to litep2p (for example, very small contributions here).
Beyond these major areas, I continue to support the ecosystem through code reviews, mentorship, and cross-team collaboration.
Provide your voting record in relation to required thresholds for your rank.
| Ranks | Activity thresholds | Agreement thresholds | Member's voting activities | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 90% | N/A | ||
| II | 80% | N/A | I have voted on 0 out of 0 referenda in which I was eligible to vote (i.e 0 % voting activity). | |
| III | 70% | 100% | ||
| IV | 60% | 90% | ||
| V | 50% | 80% | ||
| VI | 40% | 70% |
Threshold