Hello @jpatten,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Hopefully I can clarify a few points here:
- Recommendations vs. Requirements: In the Evaluation Guidelines, the criteria regarding TVL and Volume were updated from “requirements” to “recommendations”. This change ensures they serve merely as guidelines for delegates when determining grant sizes. Our intention is for future programs to outline clearer requirements, which will indeed encompass game-specific projects and initiatives.
Data Reporting Flexibility: While grant requirements remain consistent, we did introduce more flexible language in the data reporting section to accommodate different dashboard needs.
Structure and Timeline: Projects who (understandably) would prefer confirmation of proposal success prior to applying may apply in the second application round. This design choice was made in the face of heavy demand and criticism to approve funds faster.
Lastly, we truly value the engagement of leaders like yourself and at Treasure DAO. While we’ve observed some of your team members joining calls, direct involvement aids in refining our proposals at earlier stages. This proactive involvement helps us measure and incorporate these considerations ahead of time.
I think we’d all greatly value your insights on gaming incentives and impactful program design and would love to collaborate on this moving forward!