Cosmos for Humanity | C4H
Swiss NGO promoting sustainable space activities via the Outer Space Footprint indicator, citizen-led eco-labels, and advocacy for orbital environment protection in EU regulations.User Review
AI Review
A1
Reviewed on 14 Feb 2024 01:39 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.
Based on the provided project website which appears operational, and assuming a web domain registration date predating 3 months prior to the analysis, the project meets the age requirement. The existence of a Twitter account (@cosmos4humanity) also supports this conclusion.
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. - Examples include: Renewable Energy, Oracles & DMRV, Supply Chain Analysis, Carbon Accounting, climate activists / collectives, Natural Systems CO2 Sequestration
Although the Cosmos for Humanity | C4H project is centred around space sustainability and aims to reduce the environmental impact of satellite data use and space operations, it is not clear how these objectives tie directly to the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on Earth. The project's focus seems more on space environmentalism than on climate solutions as they are traditionally defined and outline in the grant proposal.
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 update since the last round has been provided with details on their progress, including the partnership with CNES and participation in European Commission consultations. However, there is no mention of minting Hypercerts.
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 project has updated its proposal with new developments, such as the European Commission survey contribution and plans for future steps including building out the technical stack and developing reports. Lessons learned or specific allocation of future funds are not detailed, but there is a mention of the intention to build a technical stack and to produce educational content.
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, being an established NGO with outlined missions and a partnership with the French Space Agency (CNES), presents a credible proposal. Although the project is in early stages, the team's involvement with European governmental space and sustainability entities lends credibility and viability.
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 public information provided in the given data that suggests the project has been involved in Sybil attacks or any forms of malicious manipulation of the grants platform or the Gitcoin community. The score here is uncertain due to lack of explicit evidence either confirming or denying such activities.