About the case

My name is Lucy Coulden.

Over eight months I delivered extensive work across the Polkadot ecosystem, including community coordination, partnerships, investor engagement and public-facing events.

The work was visible, documented and delivered publicly within the ecosystem.

I have not been paid for substantial work and expenses that are now the subject of legal disputes.

Across the disputes, the unpaid work and expenses involved total more than USDT $200,000.

This campaign is not seeking to fund the claim itself, but the legal process required to pursue it.

I am raising funds to ensure this dispute can be properly examined through legal channels rather than abandoned simply because individuals rarely have the resources to pursue complex cases against well-resourced organisations.

What happened

During this period I carried out a wide range of ecosystem activities, including:

• coordinating work connected to the Ambassador Fellowship

• partnership development and ecosystem outreach

• public representation and speaking engagements

• collaboration with ecosystem teams and contributors

• organising and supporting community initiatives

Much of this work was delivered publicly and involved representing the ecosystem at conferences, events and broadcasts.

The work was undertaken in good faith within ongoing ecosystem initiatives where contributors are routinely funded for similar roles.

Based on the structure of those initiatives, and the way work is normally funded within the ecosystem, there was a clear and reasonable expectation that the work would be supported financially.

How ecosystem funding normally works

The Polkadot ecosystem operates through a decentralised governance system known as OpenGov.

Instead of traditional corporate hiring, many contributors deliver work for the ecosystem - such as partnerships, coordination and public representation - with the expectation that funding proposals supporting that work will be approved through governance.

This system has funded a wide range of ecosystem initiatives and contributors.

Where the process failed

When payment and funding responsibility became unclear, I attempted to resolve the situation through the ecosystem’s normal governance processes.

A temporary body overseeing the work returned funds that had previously been approved for delivery and then dissolved before the matter could be resolved. As a result, there was no longer a clear entity responsible for addressing the payment issue.

Over the following months I attempted to resolve the situation privately and through ecosystem channels. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

Responsibility for payment has been disputed and legal representatives have been engaged.

Public examples of the work delivered

Some of the work carried out during this period is publicly visible.

Examples include:

• Building Polkadot's Global Community with Lucy Coulden

• Life with the Polkadot Ambassadors Panel Discussion

• Speaking at ETH Denver

These examples represent only a small portion of the public-facing work delivered during the period covered by the claim.

Continuing the work while payment and funding responsibility remained unresolved

Even after payment issues emerged, I continued delivering work publicly while attempting to resolve the situation.

Examples from that period include:

• The Fellowship Meets: The Web3 Foundation

• The Fellowship Meets: Parity Technologies

• The Fellowship Meets: The Technical Fellowship

These activities took place during the period in which payment and funding responsibility remained unresolved, while I continued coordinating with ecosystem teams and contributors.

Additional project examples

Evidence relating to specific projects referenced in the dispute includes the following publicly documented initiatives.

Arcadia partnership development

One of the major initiatives during this period involved developing a proposed partnership between the Polkadot ecosystem and Arcadia Spectacular, a large-scale cultural and music platform.

The work involved developing the partnership proposal, coordinating ecosystem stakeholders and preparing the funding submission through the ecosystem’s governance process.

The proposal was ultimately submitted through Kusama OpenGov.

This governance proposal reflects the culmination of months of partnership development work and ecosystem coordination.

House of Lords policy roundtable and dinner

Another major piece of work during this period was a policy roundtable and dinner at the House of Lords, bringing together policymakers, ecosystem representatives and external stakeholders.

I was integral to shaping the event, organising the guest list and chairing the roundtable discussion.

The event included a formal roundtable followed by a reception of approximately 120 guests. I coordinated programming, invitations, logistics and follow-up engagement.

Following the discussions held at the roundtable,  Lord Kulveer Ranger raised related questions in the House of Lords, reflecting the policy engagement generated by the event.

As a direct continuation of the relationships formed during the roundtable, I established the EIO collective, bringing together contributors from across the ecosystem and wider policy and technology communities to continue dialogue and collaboration.

Independent testimonials

More than 60 individuals across the ecosystem - including partners, contributors and community members - have provided written testimonials regarding the work delivered during this period.

These testimonials can be viewed here.

The legal action

I am now preparing to continue legal action relating to unpaid remuneration and the benefit derived from work delivered in reliance on ecosystem entities.

I have extensive documentary evidence, communications and records covering the work performed and the expectations under which it was undertaken.

If the matter can be resolved fairly, the campaign funds will ensure the dispute can be brought to a proper conclusion without abandoning the claim due to cost.

Why this matters

This case raises a wider issue within decentralised ecosystems.

Contributors are encouraged to deliver real work - partnerships, coordination, events and public engagement - often in reliance on governance systems that promise fair funding.

When those systems fail and no entity accepts responsibility, individuals can be left carrying the cost of work that benefited the ecosystem as a whole.

This case seeks to test whether decentralised structures can rely on the benefits of professional work while avoiding accountability for payment.

What the money is for

The funds raised will support:

• legal advice and case strategy

• drafting legal correspondence and claims

• court filing fees

• evidence preparation and document organisation

• disclosure-related work

• ongoing case management

The initial target is £10,000 to fund the next stage of legal preparation and advice.

If the campaign succeeds, we will continue raising funds toward £25,000 to support further legal work required to pursue the claim.

I will be transparent about how funds are used.

Please help

Legal cases like this are expensive by design. Well-resourced organisations can sustain lengthy legal processes. Individuals rarely can.

This campaign exists so the case can be examined fairly rather than abandoned due to cost.

If you believe that people should be paid for the work they actually do, please consider supporting this case.

If you cannot contribute, sharing the page helps more than you know.

Thank you.