I believe that after the official launch of the @Polkadot Network Hub, the focus of the Polkadot ecosystem should shift from a "single BD logic" to real ecosystem growth. Even @paritytech and @Web3foundation could consider integrating the existing BD functions into a clearer "ecosystem growth position".
In the past, the understanding of BD within the ecosystem was more about bringing in developers or Web2 teams. However, the growth of a network should never revolve solely around "builders". Especially now that the Polkadot Hub has become a unified application entry point, the growth strategy itself also needs to be re-evaluated.
A more reasonable approach would be to clearly differentiate between different user groups and develop differentiated growth paths.
For example, it can be at least divided into three categories: ordinary users, developer users, and institutional users.
In the Asian market, the growth strategy can focus more on ordinary users and developers: including more intensive developer activities, offline meetups, educational content, and opening up more real traffic entry points for Parity and ecosystem products.
In the European and American markets, the growth focus can lean more towards institutional users: whether it is RWA asset on-chain, compliance product launches, or the landing of stable value, settlement, and financial infrastructure, these are all directions where Polkadot has long-term advantages.
Polkadot has always attached great importance to developer cultivation, which is an important foundation. However, with the opening of Polkadot's second era, the target of ecosystem growth should also expand from a "single developer group" to a more diverse and clearly structured user hierarchy.
After the launch of Polkadot Hub, the ecosystem, along with Parity and the Web3 Foundation, should also rethink the growth issue!