Can you publish the results of the “Early Adopter Grants” ?
I’m glad about this initiative to support projects that truly bring value, but I have a small discontent. I don’t see any official communication from StarkNet regarding the winning projects for the grant. However, many teams are already announcing that they have been selected. I see a complete lack of coordination in terms of communication intentions.
How do you think we can avoid this?
Is there some form of launch pad to support funding for early projects and/or create ICO, INO or IGOs?
wow that’s surprised me, I thought there still no result yet. definitely should make a public announcement!
Sorry, ser, please refer to the following and be patient, thank you 
Decision-making process:
The EAG committee members will (1) review all applications, (2) decide on eligible projects and (3) decide on the grant size according to the point system mentioned above.
EAG committee members may consult with additional advisors, or reach out directly to projects for more information.
All grant decisions will eventually become public, but not necessarily at the time of granting. For the time being, the EAG committee will publish the list of eligible projects, and will share the grant amounts privately with eligible projects.
(From this thread:Announcing Round #1 of Early Adopter Grants (EAG) )
Looking forward to more marketing campain with the winners to get more users on board
Quite sad to see no StarkNet tooling project has been awarded, the foundation for any ecosystem…
It’s amazing to see how the Starknet project has evolved and grown over time.
Which ones do you know that didn’t qualify?
I think it would be reasonable for project’s leaders to KYC themselves to the committee just to add more trust to the projects getting the grants. Right now, I’ve been looking around some of these smaller projects and some of them haven’t had updates for months, which makes me wonder whether they were in it just for the grant and are slowly rugging the community. The problem is that by giving a grant to these projects it kind of makes them trustworthy in the eyes of regular people that are just glancing through the projects although they might be dangerous.
May I ask when the 2nd round application will be available?
Is there any follow up to recipients of Round #1 of EAG?
Some metrics or updates required about how each project uses their grant?
I’d also be interested to hear how Mint Square will be treated given that they qualified for the grant but ha since decided to shut down. Will their grant be given to another team in their place?
in my view grants are often seen as a way to encourage experimentation and risk-taking, as they allow recipients to explore new ideas without the fear of failure. This can lead to the development of groundbreaking technologies, services, or products that have the potential to make a significant impact in starknet ecosystem
I think we should be as strict as possible during the review process to avoid situations where someone else’s account is used for fraudulent claims
That’s a solid idea. Gladly, the team is probably going the right way right now, making sure every contributor gets recognized fairly. This can be observed from the EAG, followed by the recent ECMP “initiative”.
I support this suggestion. Providing grants to NFT collection willing to migrate is better than giving it to unknown teams.
gmgn
I’d like to share a link to my thread where I’ve posted a brief analysis of the grant recipients from Round #1 of the Early Adopter Grants (EAG). I’d be extremely grateful if someone from the grant allocation team could join the discussion and provide more information about the changes implemented for the next round of grants.
nothing deleted what do you mean?
Which does and doesn’t qualify for Early adoptor? Thanks frens