Substrate Ecosystem

[F-OBrien]

I wanted to question why Partiy Substrate is grouped under the Polkadot Ecosystem rather than, more correctly, having Polkadot, Kusama and other sovereign chains that use the substrate framework, with no link to Polkadot, grouped under the Substrate Ecosystem?

If you go to https://polkadot.js.org/apps/#/explorer and expand out the network selection menu in the top left corner you will find a list of many Substrate based chains. These are grouped under Polkadot, Kusama, Westend, Rococo and as sovereign Mainnets or Testnets. I believe this structure is a more correct way to model the substrate eco-system.

In the Electric Capital repositories there are currently many projects grouped under the Polkadot sub-ecosystem that have no association with the Polkadot relay chain.

As a result the current ecosystem reporting structure does a number of things.

1. It fails to highlight the full extend of the Substrate ecosystem as all substrate based chains including Polkadot and Kusama and those listed in their sub-ecosystems should roll up to substrate.
2. It overinflates numbers for Polkadot.
3. It fails to give adequate recognition of the individual contributions of sovereign substrate based chains as there is no method on your site to expand out an ecosystem like Polkadot to see the activity of individual chains within that ecosystem (Sorry if this exists on you site already but I couldn't find it).
4. Projects which contribute to both Polkadot and Kusama (and other substrate projects) only get recognized in one ecosystem.

[bleejpeg]

Having read the resources, I agree that it should be under the substrate ecosystem instead too.

[netzlj]

good

[vartekarlek]

😮