As a founder with several projects I’m not sure to understand here.
Evaluations are not cumulable. An individual will be identified by their Telegram handle. The amount they will receive will be the highest between their attribution as an individual, or as part of a project.
Should I advise my team to apply as individual separately and I’ll also submit an application for each project I’m leading (possibly featuring them) ?
Projects who were eligible for the Early Adopter Grant (EAG) are automatically eligible for ECMP. They don’t need to apply again
If we don’t apply again, how would this be possible to know which team member worked with us ?
Pretty smart move to announce ecmp now. Will there be a second round of ECMP application or that’s it? Ecosystem contribution takes time to plan and execute, it would be appreciated to give us more details so that more people can get involved in growing community
It’s great to see another round of grants, especially for those projects that may have missed the opportunity in the initial Early Grant Adopter phase.
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the introduction of the Early Community Member Program (ECMP), a commendable initiative that truly reflects the Starknet Foundation’s commitment to nurturing and appreciating its vibrant community of developers and contributors. It is indeed heartening to see a structured effort that aims to shine a spotlight on the unsung heroes who play a crucial role in driving the network’s progress and innovation.
The detailed overview of the process and timeline, alongside the clear explanation of eligibility and evaluation criteria, demonstrates a well-thought-out and transparent approach to the program. It is encouraging to see that the Starknet Foundation is taking strides to ensure fairness and inclusivity in the selection process.
However, while I express my gratitude for this wonderful initiative, I would also like to address a few concerns and seek clarification on certain aspects of the program.
Clarity on Token Distribution: The distribution mechanism for the STRK tokens is not explicitly outlined in the proposal. A clear explanation on how the tokens will be allocated among the different categories of contributors and what percentage of the 50 million STRK tokens each category is allotted would provide more transparency and ensure fair distribution.
Appeal Process: The promise to save some tokens for individuals who may appeal their exclusion is a thoughtful consideration. However, it would be beneficial to have more details on this process, including the criteria for appeals, the timeline, and the decision-making process for these cases.
Prohibited Persons Clause: The disclaimers regarding Restricted Persons, particularly the exclusion of U.S. persons, may inadvertently leave out significant contributors. I understand the legal complexities involved, but it would be worthwhile to explore possible avenues to include such individuals, ensuring that no valuable contributor is left unrewarded.
Feedback and Iterative Improvement: Lastly, I appreciate the Foundation’s openness to feedback for future iterations of the program. Establishing a formal feedback mechanism or a community forum dedicated to discussing improvements for the ECMP could foster more community engagement and enhance the program’s effectiveness in subsequent iterations.
In closing, I commend the Starknet Foundation for this groundbreaking initiative and the thoughtful approach taken to empower and recognize the community’s contributions. I am confident that the ECMP will pave the way for a stronger and more collaborative Starknet ecosystem, and I look forward to seeing its positive impact unfold.
Thank you for your attention and commitment to the Starknet community.
Very good initiative. Thanks to the Starknet Foundation.
I have been helping to promote the Startnet community including in school clubs and friends around me. hope everything is fine. Thanks
I love the Startnet community!
“Individuals who regularly published Starknet branded content”
How regularly and how will you make decisions about individuals?
Will the evaluation criteria be public ?
its so bad,I hope the Starknet project team will also pay attention to the users on the chain. After all, everyone has spent a lot of money and time.thanks
Can i get answer or something about you delays the token unlock cause that not you do that without governance or vote in snapshot
I dont know what happen inside there. But its really unprofesional to do that just like that
As an early Stark ecosystem user, I strongly protest against this activity:
I have been using the Stark network for over 2 years and am one of your earliest advocates. Over the past two years, I have witnessed every upgrade of the Stark network, the transfer of new and old wallet assets, the inability to recover assets when expanding the wallet, the need to wait for 20 minutes for a transaction, the success rate of the transaction from 50% to 90% now, the gas fee from $2 to $0.3 now, and many other changes. But your plan this time has harmed a large number of early on chain users.
1.The TVL and on chain data contributions of the Stark network are contributed by countless real on chain users. It is not achieved by social media, KOLs, or developers with profitable purposes.
2.Using web2’s marketing approach and a centralized review mechanism to reward those who cheat violates the principle of decentralization. We support those who selflessly contribute and promote to the community, but we firmly oppose rewarding witch communities that have mostly profit-making purposes and fees. On the one hand, they charge membership fees to users, and on the other hand, they use users to achieve certain promotional effects, which have caused serious negative impacts on the project, but they can still receive rewards. The complexity of this is beyond your ability to manually review and distinguish.
3.A large number of scripts and robots can be confused using AI and PS technologies. Hundreds of thousands of registrations will intensify your workload and prevent fair and effective distribution. The scientific allocation method should have been a reasonable and open screening of real data on the chain, rather than centralized and opaque manual review like yours. Your actions will lose most of your true supporters, leaving exploitable loopholes for those fake projects and KOLs.
Please remember that abandoning users who spend real money and silver to experience the ecosystem will lead to failure.
Is the 50 million tokens allocated this time deducted from the 8% tokens that have never been allocated,or is it deducted from 32.9% allocated to core contributors？
