This thread is to collect feedback and discuss the Round #1 of Early Adopter Grants (EAG).
Community feedback on Round #1 of Early Adopter Grants (EAG)
Hi there, I appreciate the efforts of the Early Adopter Grants (EAG) committee in supporting on-chain app developers within the Starknet ecosystem. I understand that the focus of this committee is to provide grants for projects with on-chain activity, which is an effective approach for evaluating projects. By the way, I was waiting a distribution for every contract deployer, rather than projects. But I think supporting projects is more efficient and important. Thank you for that vision.
In this round, I noticed the following:
- Some builders are working on multiple projects. However, if the goal is to support individual dApps, I believe each builder should be associated with only one project.
- How is “innovation” defined in this context? From my understanding, developing something for the first time in Cairo would be considered innovative.
- If receiving grants is important, I think the revenue generated from the dApp should also be a concern. For example, is someone who earned $1 million from their dApp still be eligible for thousands of extra STRK?
I believe focusing on individual builders, ratheer than just projects, in future rounds could increase efficiency (while eliminating duplicate entries, of course).
For Future Rounds:
For future rounds, I would like to inquire if there are plans for additional token distributions aimed at rewarding individuals who have contributed to the ecosystem in alternative ways, such as those who have:
- Created content and translations about Starknet
- Organized local meetups
- Participated in hackathons and attended events
- Contributed to the Starknet Community Forum
It would be wonderful to acknowledge and support these valuable contributors as well. In the beginning of a network they are also important and effective as our fantastic developers
Looking forward to learning more about any such initiatives. Thanks!
In the next round, we find it reasonable to consider tool applications within the scope of Early Adopters Grants, as you gave an example. Many projects contribute to Starknet without on-chain activity.
I believe that there are multiple organizations and individuals that are creating value beyond what we can see onchain.
We all know that the success of a web3 project depends not only on its technical capabilities, but also on whether it aligns with the values and beliefs of its intended community.
I believe Starknet needs to be creating a shared culture and vision that resonates with all the stakeholder and fosters a sense of community.
In my view some platforms are still sinning in UX/UI. After all, if consolidated L1 protocols also start to support the Starknet network, they may take market share from native protocols.
Another point, there is a lack of a more transparent policy regarding Airdrops. We know that the token airdrop policy can be used in favor of the protocol if done the right way, with well-defined rules. But not being transparent about this I believe it is a negative point. Starknet has a great point in its favor which is Account Abstraction, L1 investors simply have no idea that a Wallet like Braavos has Hardware Sign, for example. Protocol marketing should focus a lot on what the network has natively that L1 does not have.
there are some nft collection team which are not doxxed but are applying for early adopter grants .
there are some pros and cons to them , they bring some traffic to starknet which is great but at the same time they are not doxxed and their social handles were created recently.
Also , we should also use some early adopter grants to nft collection that are ready to migrate from another chain to starknet which will bring more community and new folks in the starknet.
I second this thought.
Limiting EAG requests to one project per team would bring more projects in-consideration for grants.
I support this suggestion. Providing grants to popular NFT collection willing to migrate is better than giving to new or unknown suspicious teams. That is also plus in marketing since this popular NFT collections have a lot of followings already.
All the projects looks worth to grant. Hard to pick, I somehow felt connected to most of them as I know them from very beginning of their project. It also made me feel like an og.
Thank you for opening the feedback thread.
- I’d like to echo previous comments on limiting grant requests to one project per team.
- I’d like to request stricter due diligence on teams as well as a transparency report from the EAG committee which maybe in the form of a forum post, meeting recordings or an actual report. I would encourage the EAG Committee to include some insights on its internal procedures similar to Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
- Some communication on how criteria of Innovation, Importance, activity and team were selected would be helpful along with a rubrik for assigning points. Eg: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
- It would be beneficial for the ecosystem to have teams which are long term aligned, thus awarding vested tokens to teams would be an optimal solution. Additionally I suggest keeping the vesting period proportional to the amount of tokens being issued.
I think following round of grants should also include off chain tools / onboarding tutorials that contribute to the ecosystem. Stuff like starklings, various other repos that help massively for everyone adapting to the transition to cairo 1.0 for example but aren’t deployed onchain should still be considered as their contribution to the ecosystem’s growth is arguably even greater, considering onchain activity on Starknet pre-regenesis is currently minimal / gamed by airdrop farmers.
Yeah, also stand by jon’s words. Quality over quantity. For example Aptos has experienced a lot of NFT projects, 95% of them became total cashgrabs. Doesn’t sound like a great front page for anyone that enters to get rugged.
I agree to this offer!
A well-organized airdrop policy will greatly help the project grow.
There will be a lot of discussion in the community going forward.
Our goal with this token allocation is to allow early builders to participate in the operation of the network, through staking and voting.
Then maybe it’s better to do lock-up and cliff for EAG?
2 months seems too short if we are aiming for long term.
Let there be an opportunity for voting and staking while EAG lock-up
Sounds like a good idea…although some things like doxxed nft teams and those who wish to migrate from another chain to starknet should be taken into account in my opinion
Early contributors should get a part of community governance rights and future airdrop rewards to maintain early contributors to continue to build on the ecology
I 2nd this. Already had the feeling that a few certain devs are trying to game the grant plan by rushing out a few relatively low effort projects…
In favor of redefining the grant rules and making it a little more nuanced
From my perspective, it would be great to have at least one round including also individuals who are still in the ideation stage and don’t yet have any on-chain activity. This should help attract new people and valuable projects to the ecosystem.
Personally, I want to build on Starknet anyway, but my startup’s plan is centered around traction and developing a proof-of-concept for the frontend at the moment. It seems like I would have to quickly write some contracts right now just to qualify for a grant in a system I already want to use.
Good luck to all projects today as the first batch of early adopter grants are announced
hi there!! do you know where is the annoucement? I haven’t seen it anywhere yet! Good luck to all!