Season 5, Rubrics Feedback Thread

Consistent with Season 4, reviewers in Season 5 will use rubrics to review Mission applications. The Grants Council is providing a rubric for each intent Growth Experiments and each intent Builders sub-committee rubrics here for visibility and community feedback. Please provide comments by Wednesday, March 25th for your comments to be considered. Rubrics will be finalized on March 28 at 19:00 GMT. Note that given the number of different mission requests (43) the Grants Council decided to create standard rubrics for each intent and each subcommittee and make edits based on the substance of the mission request.

Categories marked as (optional) could be removed from a specific mission request if it does not apply to the specific mission request.

The intake filter incorporated a few new points.
Intake review for Growth Experiments submission can be declined if:

  1. The project is not deployed
  2. Out of scope: Not incentivizing user growth
  3. Circumventing the No Sale rule
  4. It’s a grant program within a grant
  5. Determination of OP recipient (end user) is not organic
  6. underdeveloped

A second reviewer approval is needed if the intake is declined for any of these reasons.

Link to draft rubrics


I actually find the rubrics to be very useful. I first noticed them on the right hand margin as I was adding the content to the grant proposal. My only suggestion would be that I only found out about the grant proposal charmverse links through a nice gov member pointing me to the link. Perhaps they should be included in the ‘get a grant’ sections, or maybe I missed it? Otherwise I found the information very accessible. Obviously the tiers, teams/alliances and things like that can be a little confusing at first, but so far I’d say the system seems successful at guiding people to the proper intents.

Thank you for the feedback!

Yes! They probably will once they pass the token house vote that ends today! Thank you for your suggestion.

After reviewing the first round of scoring for the Layerwide new project support mission and noting that no one was able to achieve the minimum score, we believe some of the rubrics in the builders grant may not be relevant to this mission, making it difficult for reviewers to score projects correctly. The main goal of this mission is to attract builders, not users.
Here is the list:

  • Insights for ui/ux
  • Accessibility
  • Non-defi user attraction
  • Opensource
  • Sybil detection
  • User draw (This one can be replaced with Builder draw)
  • Builder Commitment (Service provider is providing service for locked token)

What do you think could be relevant? I agree we can remove some of these criteria but we still need to score an application here.

Hi @Gonna.eth here is our suggestion :

  • Builder Draw
  • Builders long-term support
  • Ease of bootstrap (How the proposer can assist and provide essential business needs for early and mid stage startups to bootstrap in the market)
  • Receivers potential assessment (How the proposer examines the innovative value, quality, novelty and feasibility of the projects that want to support and how can make it clarified)
1 Like

We have taken:

  • Insights for ui/ux
  • Accessibility
  • Non-defi user attraction
  • Opensource
  • Sybil detection
  • User draw (This one can be replaced with Builder draw)
  • Builder Commitment (Service provider is providing service for the locked token)

As suggested we added:

Builders long-term support

  1. No support
  2. Mercenary support (stays until benefits end)
  3. Some Commitment support (1 to 3 months after rewards end )
  4. Commitment support (1 year after rewards end)
  5. Strong Commitment support (2+ years after rewards end)

Ease of bootstrap

  1. Getting assistance will be hard and complicated
  2. Normal path to get assistance
  3. Straightforward process to get assistance

We consider

To be included on multiple questions of the rubric like “novelty” and “likelihood of success”

Thank you for your active participation in the rubric design process.

1 Like