Vean
Developing an eco-friendly platform to simplify global author publishing and sales, focusing on affordable, direct reader purchases, sustainable printing, and a circular economy approach.User Review
AI Review
A1
Reviewed on 13 Feb 2024 04:48 PM
Projects must be at least 3 months old. Newer projects should establish themselves and submit to the next round.
Project age is not provided in the information available, therefore it's not possible to assess whether it meets the 3-month requirement.
The Grant must be primarily focused on climate solutions (the group may do other work but the grant proposal should be directly related to climate solutions). The proposal should explicitly outline how this project will help reduce GHGs or is an important core infrastructure for web3 climate solutions.
While the project mentions an environmentally friendly approach, it does not seem to be primarily focused on climate solutions or outline specific GHG reduction methodologies.
Grantees who received funding in previous rounds should report on project progress since GR15 or the Alpha round. We understand that some projects may have less progress given the timing of Alpha round disbursements. This will ensure accountability to supporters and also help encourage contributors by showing what you’ve been accomplishing.
It is unclear from the information provided whether Vean has received funding in any previous rounds and if they are required to report on project progress.
All returning grantees are expected to update their proposal, in addition to project updates the proposal should include lessons learned from previous work and how they will use the additional funding from the upcoming round. The updated proposal should indicate how additional funding will help the project meet its goals, and include a rough timeline for the project overall.
Not enough information is provided to determine whether Vean is a returning grantee with an updated proposal that includes project updates, lessons learned, and funding usage.
There is a general expectation that projects are within the “realm of viability”. Even if a project may be at a very early stage, it still must seem credible to the average person with an understanding of web3 technology and climate solutions. Grantee founders must genuinely intend to build the project, and the project must not broadly be considered an impossibility.
The project appears to have a clear objective and methodology, which seems viable and credible within the realm of publishing and circular economy, and does not broadly seem like an impossibility.
Grantees can be eliminated from consideration in the round if they are found to be encouraging or enabling Sybil attacks or other forms of malicious manipulation of the grants platform or the Gitcoin community.
There is no information indicating whether the project has engaged in harmful activities, hence an assessment cannot be made on the project's past behavior regarding Sybil attacks or other manipulations.