Collabin ID: Learn And Plant - Web3 Climate Action
Promote blockchain education and environmental awareness in Indonesia through tree planting and social impact initiatives targeting Web3 communities.User Review
AI Review
A1
Reviewed on 14 Feb 2024 01:31 PM
Projects must be at least 3 months old. We use Twitter, web domain registration date, and other public info to determine this. Newer projects should establish themselves and submit to the next round.
While the project description mentions a web presence, including a website and social media accounts, there is no specific information on the date of creation of the project, such as when the domain was registered or the Twitter account was created. Therefore, it is not possible to verify if the project meets the 3-month age requirement without additional data.
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's description indicates that one of its main initiatives, 'Learn And Plant - Web3 Climate Action,' is focused on combatting climate change through tree planting and education about environmental awareness. Tree planting helps reduce GHGs, hence the project is aligned with the requirement of being primarily focused on climate solutions.
Grantees who received funding in a previous round(s) **must provide a new update on their progress and impact.** You can also include the challenges you've faced. This will ensure accountability to supporters and also help encourage contributors by showing what you’ve been accomplishing. We encourage grantees to mint Hypercerts for the work and the impact they have accomplished. Priority review will be given to grantees who have minted a Hypercert.
The project description does not mention whether they have received funding in previous rounds nor does it provide an update on progress and impact, which makes it impossible to assess if this criterion has been met. Without explicit information about past funding and progress, the score remains uncertain.
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.
The provided information does not indicate whether the project is a returning grantee and, as such, does not include an updated proposal with lessons learned, funding usage plan, or a project timeline. Evaluation on this criterion cannot be determined without knowing the grantee's history.
There is a general expectation that projects are within the **“realm of viability”**. Even if a project is very early, it must still seem credible to the average person with an understanding of web3 technology and climate solutions. Including information about the team's expertise, qualifications and skills will help us review your grant. Grantee founders must genuinely intend to build the project, and the project must not broadly be considered an impossibility.
The project proposal indicates a clear and actionable plan with goals that are within the 'realm of viability.' It aims to educate individuals about blockchain and promote environmental awareness through tree planting, both of which are credible and practical objectives. The description does not provide detailed information regarding the team's qualifications, but the initiatives they propose do not appear to be impossible.
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 provided in the project description that would indicate either compliance or non-compliance with this criterion. Without evidence of the project's community engagement practices or historical behavior, it is not possible to assess whether they may be encouraging or enabling malicious manipulation.