SECTION 1: APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant Name: @kaijumike
Project Name: Kaiju Cards
Project Description: Kaiju Cards is a hybrid on/off chain game (commonly referred to as “Web2.5”) that is building within the TreasureDAO ecosystem on Arbitrum. The game genre is “roguelike deckbuilder”, and is a tactics game that will soon have MMO-like social and economy systems added to it. Kaiju Cards is also a world-class IP built by veterans of Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, and more. We ported from Solana to Arbitrum in Q3 of 2023 and brought over 200 users with us, many of whom had never used Arbitrum before.
Team Members and Roles:
Michael Moss: CEO, founder. Pioneered utility NFTs at StrongBlock before founding the studio that’s building KC. https://twitter.com/kaijumike_
Josh Siegel (Founder/Product): Pioneered Utility NFTs at StrongBlock in 2020 with co-founder Mike. Grew up trading digital assets in Ultima Online, EverQuest, and just about any other game that had white/grey/black markets and has a deep knowledge of digital asset markets.
Tyler Russo (Creative Director/Game design): Went to the Disney-founded art school CalArts. Was most recently a director at Adult Swim, and formerly worked at The Onion and Funny or Die. https://twitter.com/BDClownFarm
Christian Vega-Munguia (Founding SWE): Graduated from UT Austin in 2020 with a bachelor’s in Quantitative Finance. Interned in investment banking (Nomura, NYC office) and asset management (TRS, $130B+ Pension fund), but his heart remained in software. https://www.linkedin.com/in/cvegamun/
Arya Bandari (Founding SWE): Self taught coder and hacker. Worked at USC to develop an algorithm for more efficiently removing the skull from imaging during CAT Scans. Worked in the Chinese Airline industry, encrypting black box data and creating tooling that mediated the info exchange between the government and the airline industry. Cracks software and develops crypto trading bots in his free time.
Kyle Salazar (Marketing and content): Kyle is a long time social media content creator and personality. He’s created videos for top tier brands and artists including Red Bull, Vice, Frank Ocean, and Katy Perry, and has grown multiple YouTube and TikTok gaming accounts. https://twitter.com/deathorcrypto
Our network of artists have done work for Nikelodeon, Disney, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, and more, and have worked on evergreen IP’s such as SpongeBob Squarepants and Adventure Time.
Project Links:
Contact Information
Point of Contact (note: this should be an individual’s name, not the name of the protocol): Michael Moss @kaijumike
Point of Contact’s TG handle: kaiju_mike
Twitter: Game: @kaijucards Mike: @kaijumike_
Email: mike@kaijucards.io
Do you acknowledge that your team will be subject to a KYC requirement?: Yes
SECTION 2a: Team and Product Information
**Provide details on your team’s past and current experience. Any *
*details relating to past projects, recent achievements and any past *
experience utilizing incentives. Additionally, please provide further *
details on the state of your product, audience segments, and how you expect incentives to impact the product’s long-term growth and sustainability.
Team experience (Any relevant experience that may be useful in
evaluating ability to ship, or execution with grant incentives. Please
provide references knowledgeable about past work, where relevant. If you
wish to do so privately, indicate that. [Optional, but recommended]):
Mike and Josh did product and economic design for StrongBlock. The main contribution there was utility/gamified NFTs, designed in late 2021. This tiered NFT collection boosted DeFi yield in various amounts.
The Kaiju Cards team together has shipped the following since late 2021:
-
A fully on-chain idle game on Solana (we have since 100% ported to Arbitrum)
-
A hybrid on/off-chain lootbox mini-game on Solana (we have since 100% ported to Arbitrum)
-
An MVP, and then an alpha version of a game
-
A full product and onchain asset port of our Alpha to Arbitrum in Q3 2023
-
Several liveops events on Arbitrum, starting in Q3 2023
Our game alpha is currently live and f2p at https://play.kaiju.cards/.
Our current audience is currently English-speaking Web3 gamers, many of them from the Solana ecosystem that we’ve brought to Arbitrum.
What novelty or innovation does your product bring to Arbitrum?
Our game is a meaningful step forward for our genre, the roguelike deckbuilder genre, with key game mechanic innovations. This is often mentioned by many of our stakeholders and community members. By both pushing our genre forward and settling our economy on Arbitrum, we’re creating a novel and innovative user experience.
In addition, we’ve put equal emphasis on both our game experience and our IP. Consumer experiences need consumer-ready IP. As our game and IP expand to the web2 market in future development phases, we’ll create direct funnels back to Arbitrum.
We have a novel Battle Pass mechanism. A Battle Pass is an earning mechanic in the traditional gaming world, and we’ve adapted this to govern our emissions, create a robust anti-sybil mechanism, and create a conversion funnel in our game. Our Battle Pass unlocked entirely by an oncahin payment. Once a Battle Pass is unlocked, it rewards high quality gameplay by distributing XP based on skillful play. Hit specific XP benchmarks unlocks onchain and offchain game assets for users.
We’re building a better UX between offchain and onchain user actions and assets. Offchain actions are better for user experience, but onchain actions are where the unlocks of crypto gaming lie. In addition, many games have one-sided economies that focus heavily on emissions and earning, but don’t have proper asset sinks. The grant will help us test some of our ideas about this.
Ultimately we want to achieve a balance between inflation and deflation that compels a user to keep playing and earning, while not negatively impacting our economy, volume, and asset price. This is a common mechanic in gaming, where an asset flow within a game inflates and deflates in balance and all serve the player progression loop.
Inflation and velocity of on-chain emissions can simultaneously be sped up and not be as much of an economic concern. The basic model here is user gets an item via a gacha mechanism → they can choose to mint it to Aritrum → if they don’t want the item they can burn it for something else of value (it must be minted to Arbitrum to be burned)
The on-chain actions for our game are:
-
Battle Pass unlocks
-
NFT minting
-
NFT burning
-
Trading volume on our collections
Is your project composable with other projects on Arbitrum? If so, please explain:
No
Yes, our blockchain assets (character NFTs, equipment NFTs) are composable on Arbitrum. We don’t have any specific interoperability mechanics for our NFTs live at the moment, but will be exploring this with Treasure games in the near term and with DeFi protocols in the medium/long term after our fungible token launch.
Do you have any comparable protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem or other blockchains?
The closest comp is Knights of the Ether, which also is building within Treasure. While we’re building in the same genre, our approach to gameplay, economy, and IP are very different, and we believe there is substantial room to grow together.
How do you measure and think about retention internally? (metrics, target KPIs)
We measure d1, d7, d14 and beyond. These are metrics common to the gaming industry and measure what % of a user cohort comes back 1 day after “day 0” (install or first login), 7 days after day 0, and 14 days after day zero.
We’re one of the first games to implement a Battle Pass system for crypto rewards distro, with a daily XP cap. This means to earn optimally and progress along the BP, players must come back every day.
Among Battle Pass unlocks in our most recent event, The Fungi Fest, 94% of them completed the BP, which required 10 days of consecutive play.
Relevant usage metrics - Please refer to the OBL relevant metrics chart 48.
For your category (DEX, lending, gaming, etc) please provide a list of
all respective metrics as well as all metrics in the general section:
Our game runs liveops events, and then shuts down on the crypto side between events. Essentially the game goes live with new features and crypto earning opportunities for a specific period of time, and then goes back into development mode. We consider these liveops events playtests of our game and we use them to test out new features and validate game loops as we’re still in Alpha.
Below are metrics from our previous 2 liveops events run exclusively on Arbitrum.
Importantly, all gameplay actions are offchain, and game sign-in requires only a wallet signature to ease UX.
The only onchain actions are: Battle Pass Unlock (happens once per user per event), NFT minting (happens at will by a user, after they’ve reached specific earning benchmarks on the Battle Pass), and then any trading a user does.
Our emissions and onchain actions are planned with a specific cadence in mind. The Battle Passes have NFT emissions at specific levels, and a user can only progress a certain amount of levels every day. This is to incentivize DAU and give people earning goals to strive for an in-game progression experience.
One of our big goals for the grant period is to increase the frequency of onchain user actions.
Pioneer Event (September 19 - October 20, 2023)
3,222 Pioneer NFTs minted (tracked via Arbiscan)
605 Treasure Chest NFTs minted (tracked via Arbiscan). 4419 Treasure Chests earned total during the event (tracked via our game server). These items exist on the game server and it is optional to mint them onto Arbitrum.
113 avg DAU. We experienced high turnover, as the progression parts of the game were gated by a purchase of either our Battle Pass or a “Genesis” NFT.
Fungi Festival (November 20 - December 4th 2023)
131 purchases of BP using ETH (tracked via Arbiscan)
45 purchases of BP using MAGIC or ARB (tracked via Arbiscan)
235 Mushroom NFTs minted (tracked via Arbiscan)
Do you agree to remove team-controlled wallets from all milestone
metrics AND exclude team-controlled wallets from any incentives included
in your plan: Yes
Did you utilize a grants consultant or other third party not named as
a grantee to draft this proposal? If so, please disclose the details of
that arrangement here, including conflicts of interest (Note: this does
NOT disqualify an applicant): No
SECTION 2b: PROTOCOL DETAILS
Provide details about the Arbitrum protocol requirements relevant
to the grant. This information ensures that the applicant is aligned
with the technical specifications and commitments of the grant.
Is the protocol native to Arbitrum?: Yes
On what other networks is the protocol deployed?: None
What date did you deploy on Arbitrum mainnet?: September 19th, 2023. Arbitrum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Arbiscan
Do you have a native token?: No
Past Incentivization: What liquidity mining/incentive programs, if any, have you previously run? Please share results and dashboards, as applicable?
Our onchain asset earning is exclusively distributed through our liveops Battle Pass structure. Users unlock a BP in a variety of ways (payment, or owning a specific NFT).
In September of 2023, we migrated our game from Solana to Arbitrum, and we provided an incentive on Arbitrum for users who chose to bridge our “Genesis” collection from Solana to Arbitrum. The incentive was a free mint of a character NFT from our “Pioneer” collection. We hit our current DAU ATH of 426, as well as our unique user ATH or over 3,000, during this program.
When the bridge was released, a majority of our active users bridged over. So far we’ve had 2,075 NFTs from 192 unique wallets permanently bridged from Solana to Arbitrum. You can track bridges here: https://dune.com/queries/3437597/5774833
Our theory is that farming a fungible token is a much stronger incentive than minting an NFT in the current climate, and so our upcoming incentivization will be focused on this.
Current Incentivization: How are you currently incentivizing your protocol?
We don’t have any incentives running as of 3/17/2024. We only run incentivization in planned liveops events, as our game is still in Alpha and we haven’t turned on perpetual emissions faucets yet.
However, we’re about to launch another liveops event, with rolling battle passes that go live every 2 weeks for several months. This starts before April 2024.
During this time, players will be able to earn NFTs as well as a soft currency, Jewels, which will be convertible to a fungible token in an upcoming campaign later this year. We’re launching features that get us one step closer to a closed loop economy, and we want to get users to come use our product so we can collect data and feedback. We’re aiming for ATH for onchain transactions, active wallets, unique users, paying users, and DAU in our upcoming campaigns.
Have you received a grant from the DAO, Foundation, or any Arbitrum
ecosystem related program? Yes, Questbook, for $22,500. We’ll use it to help fuel our port to Unity. We’ve yet to receive the funds but will soon.
Protocol Performance: [Detail the past performance of the protocol
and relevance, including any key metrics or achievements, dashboards,
Etc.]
Before we migrated to Arbitrum, we ran 2 gameplay events on Solana. Our DAU ATH between these 2 events was 126. These gameplay events were gated; users had to hold one of our Genesis Collection NFTs to gain access to the game.
We migrated to Arbitrum in Q3 2023 and hit a new DAU ATH (448) during the Pioneer Event in September 2023, which was our first gameplay event after joining the Treasure ecosystem. This event had the largest marketing push we’ve put into a gameplay event thus far.
Since bridging to Arbitrum, we’ve had over 21,403 runs played in our game (tracked via game server).
We’ve had 192 unique wallets use our custom bridge from Solana to Arbitrum. This has resulted in over 2,000 NFTs permanently transferred from Solana to Arbitrum. Users burn their Solana NFTs and receive a newly minted copy of that NFT on Arbitrum. Anecdotally, many of our top holders were not regular Arbitrum users before our migration. This can be seen in the “Genesis Bridged” section of this Dune dashboard: https://dune.com/sleazysauce/kaiju-cards
Our goal is to hit a new DAU ATH of 700, increase amount of bridged Genesis NFTs, and increase the amount of onchain actions (via BP purchases and NFT burning).
Protocol Roadmap:
This roadmap isn’t comprehensive, as we have features that are not announced yet that don’t belong on a public forum. Also note the dates are estimates and are subject to change.
Launch of rolling Battle Passes: Late March 2024
Launch of item deflation: Mid April 2024
Launch of character deflation: Mid May 2024
TGE: July 2024
Launch of initial token utility and social economy features: August 2024
Tuning on economy and social features: August-Nov 2024
Open Beta: Nov 2024
Audit History & Security Vendors: No audits. Our game is mediated by our server with limited blockchain interaction at this time.
Simple explanation of architecture:
All game actions happen on our game server. For a user to log in, they sign a message to verify wallet ownership and we use a listener to read what’s in their wallet that can be used in-game.
The following actions are on-chain. The user initiates the action and then we check for tx confirmation on Arbitrum to unlock the feature in question. Battle Pass unlock (verification of staking tx or payment tx)
- Minting NFT (server doesn’t let user initiate a tx unless they have the item in question in their in-game, offchain inventory)
- Burning NFT (server checks wallet for relevant assets, assets show up inside their inventory screen in-game once logged in, server makes burning available for relevant assets. Once user initiates burning tx, server checks for tx confirmation and then credits the user with offchain assets in their inventory based on the attributes of the NFT they burned)
We use the following Diamond contracts for all onchain actions.
GoodEarthDiamond | Address 0x79063992cFa183F3325619b7Ceaf1d30aEf1De00 | Arbiscan (Battle Pass unlocks via payment, Minting of Adventurers collection)
KaijuDiamond | Address 0xb2e806a80D9328b3dC3787313588CE18A44B8653 | Arbiscan (Battle Pass unlocks via staking, minting of Pioneer Collection, minting of Equipment and Treasure Chest NFTs)
Security Incidents:
None
SECTION 3: GRANT INFORMATION
Detail the requested grant size, provide an overview of the
budget breakdown, specify the funding and contract addresses, and
describe any matching funds if relevant.
Requested Grant Size: 12,000 ARB. 6,000 ARB as rebates for Battle Pass unlocks, which is an onchain in-app purchase that opens up earning opportunities, and 6,000 ARB as rebates for NFT burning, which is an onchain action a user can take to earn allocation in our fungible token TGE.
Justification for the size of the grant 48:
We’re targeting 2 specific onchain actions we want users to take.
- Battle Pass unlocks
- NFT burning
Battle Pass unlocks mean inflation of onchain and offchain assets, and NFT burning means deflation. We’d like to create as much of a closed loop economy as possible while incenvitizing onchain user actions.
- Reach: This campaign sees us bring more actions on-chain than ever, prepares for a fungible token launch, and introduce new earning mechanisms within the product. To earn Jewels, a user must engage in some on-chain action. We’re aiming for 10,000+ total transactions and 500+ unique addresses. We’d also like to increase our onchain mechanics in our product so that we’re discoverable through leaderboards on onchain metrics tracking sites.
- Retention: We’ll be measuring retention across Battle Passes, and retention via frequency of burning transactions per wallet.
- Revenue: We take a fee for all actions we’re incentivizing. Battle Pass unlocks, and NFT minting and burning transactions. Revenue is brought in entirely in crypto and will be sent to 2 different contract addresses we control. We also make secondary market fees off of trading volume. We’ll make an aggregated revenue Dune dashboard.
The loops we’re looking at are:
Fee subsidy for Battle Pass purchases → Earning opp for fungible token has reduced friction, cost, and risk → User earns Jewels and NFts via game, watches numbers go up → User burns some/all of NFts earned to increase Jewels → Increase of onchain transactions → Increase of onchain volume (sweep floors to burn more NFTs to increase Jewels)
Bonus rebate for fee on BP purchases and NFT burning → New users come in → Growth of new users
Bonus rebate for fee on BP purchases and NFT burning → Marketplace volume goes up (people buy NFTs to burn them) → Visibility on marketplaces and onchain metrics tracking websites → Growth of new users
Grant Matching:
None.
Grant Breakdown:
We want to incentivize 2 different onchain actions
- Battle Pass unlocks
- NFT burning
These actions are important in that they signify a high quality user interacting with our game. They both require the user pays a fee on top of completing an onchain action, and thus are a great filter for bots and sybilers. We have “free to play” earning opportunities in our game as well but BP unlocks and NFT burning offer a substantially higher yield (roughly 10x on average per hour).
Battle Pass unlocks are a purchase in either ETH, MAGIC, or ARB. Unlocking a Battle Pass is the only way a user can earn via our game (via active gameplay, via staking specific NFTs, or both).
NFT burning is a contract interaction. NFT burning allows users to earn Jewels, our soft currency that will be convertible into our fungible token later in 2024. This feature allows people to recycle their “losing” rolls from our various gacha mechanics.
7,000 ARB for Battle Pass Unlocks
1.4 ARB for every Battle pass unlock, for up to 5,000 Battle Pass unlocks.
We’re aiming for 5,000 cumulative Battle pass unlocks. A new Battle Pass starts every 2 weeks. These Battle Passes will run for a minimum of 6 cycles, or 12 weeks. BP unlock momentum will likely swell as our campaign gains traction. So we assume unlocks will increase per Battle Pass as time goes on, ie: the first BP will not have as many unlocks as the fourth.
Previously Battle Pass unlock ATH for an event is 326. However we have no comparable liveops event. Our previous 2 BP’s were one-offs, and our upcoming BP’s are rolling with constant entrypoints and earning opps available.
5,000 ARB for Item and Character Deflation
1.2 ARB for every burn TX, for up to 5,000 burn txs.
Ideally these burns are spread between 500+ unique wallets. Best case scenario is 500+ unique wallets engage in burning. However, if we see a large concentration of burns among a smaller amount of wallets, we also view that as a success. The main goal here is to balance inflation and deflation of assets.
Funding Address: 0xA7CfcF6519369f41559CE1f610aFDA39eC6435ca
Funding Address Characteristics: 2/3 MPC Vault Multisig, accepts 721’s.
Treasury Address: Our USD treasury is kept off-chain ever since the USDC depeg. We don’t have a native token yet.
Contract Address:
Payments for BP unlock will be received here:: 0x79063992cFa183F3325619b7Ceaf1d30aEf1De00
NFT burning will happen here: 0xb2e806a80D9328b3dC3787313588CE18A44B8653
SECTION 4: GRANT OBJECTIVES, EXECUTION AND MILESTONES
Clearly outline the primary objectives of the program and the Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs), execution strategy, and milestones used
to measure success. This helps reviewers understand what the program
aims to achieve and how progress will be assessed.
Objectives:
- Kickstart our new economic loop by hitting:
- 5,000+ burnt NFTs minimum.
- 5,000+ Battle Pass unlocks minimum.
- Increase trading volume across all KC collections to 50,000+ $MAGIC. Volume is currently at $22,700 MAGIC
Execution Strategy:
Burning/deflation will be an on-chain transaction. We’ll use our server to confirm the user has completed a burn TX, and then will send an Arbitrum rebate to the wallet address that executed the burn tx.
Battle Pass unlock will be an on-chain transaction. We’ll use our server to confirm the user has completed the payment TX, and then will send an Arbitrum rebate to the wallet address that executed the payment tx.
What mechanisms within the incentive design will you implement to
incentivize “stickiness” whether it be users, liquidity or some other
targeted metric? [Provide relevant design and implementation details]
We’ve spent the last year proving our core game loop through rigorous playtesting, and are now focused on adding a robust social and economic layer to our product. This means that we’ll consistently be experimenting with new incentives for our users for the foreseeable future, and searching for the most engaging/used loops and mechanics.
The incentives we’ll have in the next 6-12 months are:
- Allowing users to earn an allocation of our token
- TGE as a major community and liquidity growth event
- Token utility powering social value accrual and transfer mechanisms
- Iteration on value accrual and social mechanisms to incentivize users interacting directly with each other onchain.
We’re open to working collaboratively with our advisors throughout the length of the incentive program to ensure our value accrual and social mechanisms are working efficiently.
If we’re approved for the LITPP, we’ll use the funds to ease UX, erase gas fees for our users temporarily, and give a rebate for in-app purchases, and we believe these are strong incentives to help our hybrid onchain/offchain earning engine start up with a bang.
After the LTIPP ends, we’ll still have our own powerful incentives in place for playing our game.
Specify the KPIs that will be used to measure success in achieving
the grant objectives and designate a source of truth for governance to
use to verify accuracy. [Please also justify why these specific KPIs
will indicate that the grant has met its objective. Distribution of the
grant itself should not be one of the KPIs.]
2,000+ Battle Pass Unlocks
- Straightforward measure for success: users have participated in the NFT burning mechanism. Battle Pass unlocks require payment, and it’s how we ensure that our emissions are going to real and dedicated users, and not bots/sybil attacks. For this reason we view BP unlocks as our most robust onchain user metric.
5,000+ NFTs burnt total.
- Straightforward measure for success: users have participated in the NFT burning mechanism. Because this mechanic is gated by a small fee ($0.50) it indicates a real usage of our program, and not sybil-ing. For this reason we view NFT burning as our second most robust onchain user metric (it costs less than BP unlock and requires slightly less engagement with our core game loop than the BP does).
High retention rate (50%+) between Battle Pass Unlocks
- This is retention of paying users. Battle Passes run for 2 weeks, and they’re rolling, meaning a new one starts as soon as the previous one ends.
Trading volume across all KC NFT collections hitting 50,000 MAGIC.
- Hitting 50,000 MAGIC trading volume means that we’ve stimulated demand for KC NFTs sufficiently through the burn mechanism. Note that it’s possible we fail to hit this milestone if users are not trading their NFTs, but are de-listing them off marketplaces in order to burn them themselves, and burning their earned NFTs (as opposed to selling to others to burn) during the incentivization period. For these reasons, we are not including this in the milestones section of the grant and will be monitoring it closely. We’ll gather valuable data about how users interact with these features, which we plan to scale over time.
I’ll make a Dune dashboard that aggregates all of the above info. BP unlocks will go live on March 26th and burning will go live on or around April 14th, I’ll add tracking for these to the dashboard as they roll out.
Grant Timeline and Milestones:
6,000 ARB distributed for initial program kickoff and beginning of incentivisation.
6,000 ARB distributed when we hit 2,000 NFTs burn and 2,000 Battle Pass unlocks. The reason why we have chosen 2,000 (40% of milestone goal) instead of 2,500 for each (50% of milestone goal) is to make sure there’s enough time to reload the Arbitrum balances to keep the incentivization running with no pauses.
1,500 ARB at program kickoff, and then 500 bi-weekly
How will receiving a grant enable you to foster growth or innovation
within the Arbitrum ecosystem?
- The web 2.5 approach for games means most user actions are not on-chain. This results in many of the best games on Arbitrum having little to no on-chain presence outside of marketplace volume, which is usually concentrated highly around a few key events and then dies down. By bringing more crypto and economy specific actions on-chain, we increase on-chain visibility not just of KC but of the entire gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum.
- On-chain game economies are still in the early testing phase. Nobody has done it right yet. For us, deflation is the first step in the process of creating something robust and sustainable.
Do you accept the funding of your grant streamed linearly for the
duration of your grant proposal, and that the multisig holds the power
to halt your stream? Yes
SECTION 5: Data and Reporting
OpenBlock Labs has developed a comprehensive data and reporting
checklist for tracking essential metrics across participating protocols.
Teams must adhere to the specifications outlined in the provided link
here: Onboarding Checklist from OBL 42. Along with this list, please answer the following:
Is your team prepared to comply with OBL’s data requirements for the
entire life of the program and three months following and then handoff
to the Arbitrum DAO? Are there any special requests/considerations that
should be considered?
Yes, and no.
Does your team agree to provide bi-weekly program updates on the
Arbitrum Forum thread that reference your OBL dashboard? [Please
describe your strategy and capabilities for data/reporting]
Yes, I’ll spin up a Dune dashboard for burning as soon as possible. The feature is still being built so this is not possible yet.
First Offense: *In the event that a project does not provide a
bi-weekly update, they will be reminded by an involved party (council,
advisor, or program manager). Upon this reminder, the project is given
72 hours to complete the requirement or their funding will be halted.
Second Offense: Discussion with an involved party (advisor, pm,
council member) that will lead to understanding if funds should keep
flowing or not.
Third Offense: Funding is halted permanently
Does your team agree to provide a final closeout report not later
than two weeks from the ending date of your program? This report should
include summaries of work completed, final cost structure, whether any
funds were returned, and any lessons the grantee feels came out of this
grant. Where applicable, be sure to include final estimates of
acquisition costs of any users, developers, or assets onboarded to
Arbitrum chains. (NOTE: No future grants from this program can be given
until a closeout report is provided.)
Yes
Does your team acknowledge that failure to comply with any of the
above requests can result in the halting of the program’s funding
stream?:
Yes