[This proposal is being re-submitted due to a technical error. We extend our gratitude to everyone who supported us during this time and guided us through the process. We're back and ready to move forward]
Our initial concept was presented on AAG on October 24, and we're gearing up for another session on November 14. After a month of in-depth discussions with the community, we gathered valuable feedback and insights and incorporated these key points into the proposal description to reflect what the community values most.
Feel free to drop any thoughts or feedback in the comments below — your insights will help us refine our approach and make the final outcome even stronger!
Tl;dr Requesting $300K USDT to fund a Creative Tech Accelerator for Polkadot
We are Fuelarts, a Creative Tech startup accelerator that has been active in the market since 2019. We specialize in blockchain ecosystems, whether building them from the ground up or enhancing existing ones. In 2023, we ran a successful batch for Tezos, integrating 10 new dApp startups into their ecosystem.
BitBasel, one of the leading Web3 and Digital Art enablers, is our partner on projects in Miami and across the US. This program will be developed with their extensive support and active involvement.
Our analysis of the Polkadot creative startup ecosystem revealed an over-saturation of marketplaces (trade) and a shortage of startups in crucial areas such as production, management, and analytics. However, we identified intriguing cross-industry intersections (fitness + GameFi, automotive + GameFi, etc.), highlighting the significant potential for blockchain-based gaming applications.
This proposal for Polkadot highlights the following potential opportunities for the blockchain brand:
• Expanding and establishing a strong presence in the US market, both online and physically (Miami)
• Preparing the Polkadot creative startup ecosystem for the next market cycle by attracting utility-based business models
• Positioning Polkadot as the leading blockchain for the creative economy (art, fashion, music, cinema, design, etc.)
• Implementing Polkadot’s Web3 tools within Web2 companies in the creative industries (auctions, fairs, film companies, concert agencies, architectural firms, advertising bureaus, etc.)
• Reigniting investor interest in Web3 startups on Polkadot, reducing reliance on treasury funding. The collaboration offer between Fuelarts x BitBasel and Polkadot implies exclusivity — we will not conduct other acceleration programs in 2025 directly or indirectly related to other Blockchain brands.
**Core Insights from Discussions with the Polkadot Creative Community **
One of the biggest hurdles for Polkadot’s creative dApps ecosystem is building user traction and gaining investor confidence in sustainable growth. Our aim with the Fuelarts x BitBasel accelerator isn’t just to launch more startups or art projects within Polkadot and call it a day. Instead, we’re here to set a new standard where “creative” is synonymous with responsibility and sustainability.
To achieve this, we’re focusing on MVP / MVP+ startups with established user bases — teams that can bring dedicated users who see Polkadot as their platform of choice.
Additionally, we see Web2 audiences as a gateway. Picture this: onboarding Art Basel’s 200K+ client base through a Polkadot-powered payment solution. We've scheduled a December meeting with Art Basel’s blockchain team to explore this, with plans to reach out to Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and eventually expand into sectors like music, film, and fashion.
We recognize that while Polkadot has plenty of art marketplaces (20+ sites and 14 collections), many lack meaningful utility for asset holders, reducing engagement. Rather than adding more marketplaces to the batch, we’ll focus on collaborating with existing ones to enhance asset utility and drive demand.
To further distinguish Polkadot startups, we’ll keep pace with NFT trends, introducing rebranding strategies that empower startups to stand out. The tools developed in this accelerator batch will be applied across the Polkadot ecosystem, ensuring long-term growth and relevance.
Denis, Fuelarts / Jorge, BitBasel
Edited
Fuelarts Creative Tech Accelerator Proposal for Polkadot
Re-submission: Proposal resubmitted due to technical error, seeking $300K USDT for a Creative Tech Accelerator.
Partners: Fuelarts, a startup accelerator since 2019, and BitBasel, a Web3 and Digital Art enabler.
Market Analysis: Identified over-saturation in marketplaces and potential in blockchain-based gaming.
Objectives:
Expand Polkadot's presence in the US, especially in Miami.
Attract utility-based business models.
Position Polkadot as the leader in the creative economy.
Integrate Web3 tools into Web2 creative industries.
Reignite investor interest in Polkadot startups.
Community Insights: Focus on MVP/MVP+ startups with established user bases and enhancing asset utility in existing marketplaces.
Web2 Integration: Plan to onboard Web2 audiences, starting with Art Basel's client base.
Exclusivity: Fuelarts and BitBasel will not conduct other acceleration programs related to other blockchain brands in 2025.
Hello and thank you for your referendum on Polkadot’s OpenGov. We are very excited to see the current traction of Miami as a region within Polkadot and crypto in general. It is certainly a region where crypto is blooming.
We have decided to vote against this proposal for the following reasons:
We are wondering about the level and the mechanics Polkadot’s integration with the proposed startups. In the past, hackathon winners didn’t spent much time or resources developing on Polkadot as many of the winners just slightly adapted their projects in order to fit well enough into Polkadot to never see the ecosystem ever again. This is obviously mitigated by the fact that Fuelarts x Bitbasel would require at least 2 years of commitment and that is a well structured accelerator. However, the main issue for us here is to know how this integration will happen? Will there be any technical materials to follow? (For instance the PBA curriculum) Will there be any technical mentors with Polkadot-sdk knowledge following these integrations? Our reluctance regarding this point is that, using the Polkadot-sdk and related technologies requires specialized knowledge and we would like to know in detail how these startups will learn and integrate the technology into their products and companies. There is the argument that startups are ready to implement and integrate with Polkadot, which is a bit hard to agree since we have not seen any creative startups being involved with the technology previously, therefore, this question of how will the technical expertise be implemented becomes relevant. In short, what will this Polkadot mentorship look like?
Uncertainty about the role of other ecosystem players. As announced initially on the discussion: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2522 Bitbasel seeks to target high end influencer and high end events as a visibilisation model, something Polkadot has already attempted and will continue to attempt it seems, as this high end event will be funded by the events bounty. There was a mention of more collaboration between active members of Polkadot but we don’t see anything related to that on this referendum. So the clarifications about the angle of why supporting these high end events would be a good to have. Past results have shown us that focusing too far away from the core technology and too much on visibility don’t bring positive results.
There are other smaller inaccuracies that we have detected like counting Polkadot art marketplaces (20+ sites and 14 collections), Polkadot startups are funded mostly by the treasury (in fact they are the minority possibly non-existent at the moment) and lack of information about the 4 out of 10 AI incubated projects (What will this AI integration look like?) while not exactly deal breakers, it means that further research into Polkadot and possibly focus is needed in order to ascertain better its needs, opportunities as well as limitations at the present time.
Finally, we would like to know the exact mechanics of the future funding of the incubated/accelerated projects. There have been parachains and dapps that have sought OpenGov funding but most of their funding has been declined. There is only a minority that has reached any type of funding. So we would like to know well in advance if winning startups will pursue an only VC funding or shared funding model treasury + VC (according to the proposal up to 10 per batch, which would overwhelm the treasury and consequently the token price if said startups looked for treasury funding after their successful acceleration) because proposals dump the token in favor of cash funding. USDC/T funds would not be enough to cover such seed funding so DOT tokens would have to be used if these 10 winning startups came to the Polkadot treasury in March. If that were to happen, a real figure for future funding should be presented so that tokenholders could evaluate critically the future startup expenses and whether or not it is realistic to fund ~10 startups with public funds. Without this figure, we are left to speculate on whatever the final startups are going to ask by the end of their incubation/acceleration. Realistically speaking, it could well be in the dozens of millions by March 2025 if all accelerated startups sought treasury funding.
Thank you for your proposal, and for joining our call to present it. Our vote on this proposal is NAY. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
This proposal raised some concerns centered around its timing, objectives, and target audience. While the effort to bring more founders into the ecosystem was acknowledged, members questioned whether targeting established startups with existing product-market fit aligns with Polkadot’s current phase. Some suggested that these startups might hesitate to pivot their technology stack entirely to Polkadot. Others recommended starting with a smaller scope or leveraging Kusama as a better fit for this initiative. Additionally, concerns were raised about the lack of clear objectives and the absence of complementary ecosystem infrastructure like Plaza.
Hello and thank you for your referendum on Polkadot’s OpenGov. We are very excited to see the current traction of Miami as a region within Polkadot and crypto in general. It is certainly a region where crypto is blooming.
We have decided to vote against this proposal for the following reasons:
We are wondering about the level and the mechanics Polkadot’s integration with the proposed startups. In the past, hackathon winners didn’t spent much time or resources developing on Polkadot as many of the winners just slightly adapted their projects in order to fit well enough into Polkadot to never see the ecosystem ever again. This is obviously mitigated by the fact that Fuelarts x Bitbasel would require at least 2 years of commitment and that is a well structured accelerator. However, the main issue for us here is to know how this integration will happen? Will there be any technical materials to follow? (For instance the PBA curriculum) Will there be any technical mentors with Polkadot-sdk knowledge following these integrations? Our reluctance regarding this point is that, using the Polkadot-sdk and related technologies requires specialized knowledge and we would like to know in detail how these startups will learn and integrate the technology into their products and companies. There is the argument that startups are ready to implement and integrate with Polkadot, which is a bit hard to agree since we have not seen any creative startups being involved with the technology previously, therefore, this question of how will the technical expertise be implemented becomes relevant. In short, what will this Polkadot mentorship look like?
Uncertainty about the role of other ecosystem players. As announced initially on the discussion: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2522 Bitbasel seeks to target high end influencer and high end events as a visibilisation model, something Polkadot has already attempted and will continue to attempt it seems, as this high end event will be funded by the events bounty. There was a mention of more collaboration between active members of Polkadot but we don’t see anything related to that on this referendum. So the clarifications about the angle of why supporting these high end events would be a good to have. Past results have shown us that focusing too far away from the core technology and too much on visibility don’t bring positive results.
There are other smaller inaccuracies that we have detected like counting Polkadot art marketplaces (20+ sites and 14 collections), Polkadot startups are funded mostly by the treasury (in fact they are the minority possibly non-existent at the moment) and lack of information about the 4 out of 10 AI incubated projects (What will this AI integration look like?) while not exactly deal breakers, it means that further research into Polkadot and possibly focus is needed in order to ascertain better its needs, opportunities as well as limitations at the present time.
Finally, we would like to know the exact mechanics of the future funding of the incubated/accelerated projects. There have been parachains and dapps that have sought OpenGov funding but most of their funding has been declined. There is only a minority that has reached any type of funding. So we would like to know well in advance if winning startups will pursue an only VC funding or shared funding model treasury + VC (according to the proposal up to 10 per batch, which would overwhelm the treasury and consequently the token price if said startups looked for treasury funding after their successful acceleration) because proposals dump the token in favor of cash funding. USDC/T funds would not be enough to cover such seed funding so DOT tokens would have to be used if these 10 winning startups came to the Polkadot treasury in March. If that were to happen, a real figure for future funding should be presented so that tokenholders could evaluate critically the future startup expenses and whether or not it is realistic to fund ~10 startups with public funds. Without this figure, we are left to speculate on whatever the final startups are going to ask by the end of their incubation/acceleration. Realistically speaking, it could well be in the dozens of millions by March 2025 if all accelerated startups sought treasury funding.