This isn’t just about a single grant rejection. It’s about a deeper breakdown between the process that’s described, and the one that’s actually experienced by builders — especially those entering the ecosystem for the first time.
All we did is document our experience. Respectfully. Transparently. Because it matters for other builders.
Let’s be clear: we never questioned anyone’s ethics or made personal insinuations. We pointed to structural problems — deviations from the rubric, review execution, and scoring — using our case as a concrete example.
We need only look at this thread. You chose to selectively highlight partial points to support your own framing.
All we have subsequently done is clarify facts.
This thread itself is a perfect example of the issues at play.
You have repeatedly attempted to discredit us and when we respond (after the selective positioning) you attempt to move this private when we pointed out the inaccuracies in your statements.
We have no more to say on the matter, the DAO can be the judge of the facts.
We’re putting our reputation on the line not to get a grant — but to stand up for values we believe the DAO should live by: transparency, fairness, and accountability.
This is about more than just our project. It’s about how we treat builders — and how a system evolves when critique isn’t just tolerated, but welcomed.