User Review
AI Review
A1
Reviewed on 13 Feb 2024 03:12 PM
Projects must be at least 3 months old. Newer projects should establish themselves and submit to the next round.
Insufficient information is provided regarding the project age.
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.
The project description does not indicate a focus on climate solutions, nor does it mention GHG reduction or web3 climate infrastructure.
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 not clear whether this project has received funding in previous rounds, so progress cannot be assessed.
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.
There is no information provided regarding previous grant receipts, updated proposals, or lessons learned.
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 description does not seem to relate to web3 technology or climate solutions, nor does it appear to represent a viable or credible project within these domains.
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 to suggest the project has engaged in such behavior, but due to the lack of relevant project information, it cannot be conclusively determined.