Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
We voted for NO onchain mechanism because while collaberry seems interesting, it may add unnecesary overhead to the process of giving grants as its a new tool, which needs to be adapted to this purpose and also the teams need to learn to use. It would be better to have Collaberry as an option rather than to require its use and also potentially double fund it(if we’re wrong on this aspect please let us know)
Given that there is a operational spend of $87,000, there should be enough funds for the operations team to judge the progress of the teams (who should probably be required to give monthly reports)
If collabbery is used and funded, it may make sense to reduce operational spend, since it seems thats the purpose of the tool.
Finally, one question is how will project success be measured beyond “first 100 users”?