It has been six months since the announcement of Starknet’s Round #1 of the Early Adopter Grants (EAG). A diverse range of projects submitted their applications, with the hope of contributing to the ecosystem. I have taken the time to review the outcome and found some points that I believe deserve a broader community discussion.
From the 68 projects awarded grants:
21 projects appear inactive over the recent months. This raises concerns about the selection criteria and how the grant resources are being utilized.
14 projects are categorized as NFT collections. While NFTs have their place in blockchain ecosystems, it’s worth questioning if such projects are ideal candidates for grants, given that they might not significantly drive adoption or add long-term value to Starknet.
The transparency in the point allocation system also seems to be missing. It’s currently unclear how many points each project received and based on which specific criteria. For an illustrative example of how transparency can be achieved, I believe Optimism Foundation has done a commendable job. They have managed to attain excellent transparency in their grant allocation process. Here’s a document from their grant program showcasing the points each project received, categorized by criteria.
Looking ahead, with the recent announcement of the “Early Community Member Program,” I am concerned that similar issues might resurface. We must take the lessons from our previous grant programs and ensure that future grants truly benefit our ecosystem.
In conclusion, while it’s essential to provide grants to foster Starknet ecosystem’s growth, the manner in which it is done needs to be transparent and efficient. I sincerely hope Starknet takes this feedback into consideration and makes the necessary improvements in subsequent grant rounds.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to the community’s thoughts and further discussions on this matter.
Here is a list of projects in a convenient format with links and categories, indicating which projects seemed to me to have been inactive for several months.
Nice list dude…and i agree wit u. Most of those deemed dead by your chart, I havr interacted with and no longer seem to building further. Great job brining this to attention of starknet. Grants should be granted to those who continued to build through this bear market.
Thanks for your feedback. I agree, grants should go to projects that keep building, especially through tough times. Hopefully, Starknet community will take this into account for future grant decisions.
It is suggested that funding for a project should be provided in stages based on its development progress, rather than in one lump sum. Each stage of the project should receive a certain amount of funding or reward upon completion. However, this would require a significant amount of time and effort to track and investigate the progress of the project.
First of all thanks for your effort by investigating and listing all these projects.
As you know, the closure of Mintsquare dealt a blow to all NFT collections. I don’t think any of the marketplaces that emerged afterwards have stood out from the competition among themselves yet. Speaking on behalf of Galaksians, I would like to point out that we do not promise onchain development, we only provide NFT ownership and being a part of the community. Of course, I would like to point out that the new series will be released in the future and the grant will be used for the benefit of NFT owners. But what I have mentioned above and the fact that the NFT market is not in a good condition right now make me think that any effort will not be of much use. Also, as you can guess, the $STRK token must be released before we can use the grant
I just wanted to say that we’re not going anywhere…
Kindly regards
Excellent post & great work producing the list.
Astonishing to think that some of these low/no effort projects will have already received the totality of their grant (and perhaps this explains why they’ve done little or nothing since):
“Projects that are already deployed on mainnet by the decision deadline (April 5, 2023) will be immediately eligible for 100% of their token grant.”
Maybe they’ll now roll the rock away from the entrance to their cave & come crawling back into the light, moribund projects resurrected by the offer of yet more free tokens from the ECMP.
Absolutely, the shutdown of Mintsquare indeed posed a significant setback, highlighting the need to focus on strengthening the core protocols of the ecosystem. A robust and accessible marketplace can notably enhance the worth of NFT collections. As for the grant sizes, the lack of available information on this matter underscores my call for increased transparency in how grants are allocated and distributed.
Great idea! Conditional funding based on project progress can enhance the efficiency of Starknet’s grants. However, it’s crucial to avoid excessive control to not stifle creativity and initiative among developers. Perhaps, in our community, there are volunteers willing to assist in monitoring project progress, combining transparency with support for participants.
I agree that there’re many NFT projects seems to be dead or it cannot be sustainable in long run. Therefore, the selection criteria and follow up should be carefully reviewed.
On the other hand, there’re several projects which were inactive and lack of communication through discord, twitter and other channel. It raises concern as you mentioned.
Solid NFT Projects are very valuable to the community. RYG seems like they keep building. Punks airdropped $PUNK. They are bringing people on chain, which helps everyone
maybe conditional funding could be connected to some predefined milestones
doesn’t have to be “set in stone”, but some level of accountability should be there
