Threshold
who are the team members behind this project? I didn't see any mention in the proposal doc.
Many thanks for your proposal, NFTMozaic!
We have carefully reviewed your application. Below are the results of our analysis:
Impact on the Ecosystem: 6.75 / 10
Governance Compatibility: 9.00 / 10
Cost-Benefit Ratio: 5.00 / 10
Transparency and Traceability: 4.00 / 10
Record and Credibility: 6.00 / 10
Conclusion
The overall score is 6.15 / 10
🔹🔷🔹 vonFlandern 🔹🔷🔹 has therefore voted with: ABSTAIN
Our methodology aims to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals objectively, effectively, and transparently, establishing clear decision-making foundations for our votes while making our process visible to the community.
For a deeper dive into our evaluation, please see the detailed report here: https://vonflandern.org/polkadot-referendum/1570
Edited
PolkaWorld’s initial vote on the proposal was NAY, with unanimous opposition based on the following points:
While “consumer-facing NFT applications” are indeed an important area of exploration in Web3, there are still potential challenges under the current market environment and Polkadot’s ecosystem conditions that require careful consideration:
• The NFT user market has cooled, with narrative fatigue setting in.
• Polkadot has yet to establish a strong user base for NFTs.
• Over-reliance on KPI-based incentives may lead to “digital optimization” rather than “real adoption.”
Lack of clarity in the proposal content
• How will the 110,000 DOT be allocated? Can there be further clarification on what the 10% reserved for marketing and development covers specifically? What exactly will NFTMozaic develop?
• For each project receiving up to 5,000 DOT, what is the minimum amount? How will funding levels be determined?
• With AssetHub only expected to launch in Q3, is it too early to apply for such a proposal now?
• The proposal should explicitly state that any unused funds will be returned to the Treasury.
• What specific role will NFTMozaic play in this proposal, and what will be its main responsibilities?
The proposal budget does not clearly list personnel costs. Does this imply that team members will automatically serve as curators? This raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest or unclear role definitions.
The proposal mentions using “wallet download numbers” as an evaluation metric, specifically referring to Unique wallets. This raises a question: must participating projects be built on the Unique network? If so, this could limit project diversity and broad participation. If not, then using Unique wallets as a general metric may be unreasonable and warrants further clarification.
For more detailed feedback, please visit here.
It should be noted that while we cast a NAY vote, we have also raised questions to the team and will consider a second-round evaluation based on their responses.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received two aye and three nay votes from ten available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Opinions varied among voters regarding a proposed program related to NFTs. Some expressed support, highlighting the potential for evolving the NFT space and considering the initiative worth trying despite uncertainties about adoption. Others abstained or opposed the proposal, citing concerns over the high demands placed on teams, the lack of transparency regarding selection criteria and curators, and a desire for greater decentralization. Many emphasized the need for clearer information to ensure effective governance and avoid potential gatekeeping.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Edited
Truth DAO voted NAY.
Members felt that the proposal attempts to drive complex consumer applications with a small budget, underestimating user acquisition costs and technical barriers while overestimating the fairness of the curation mechanism. Its design seems more aligned with marketing narratives (e.g. “incubating 20 projects”) rather than the genuine development needs of the ecosystem. Moreover, the proposal lacks clarity in its content!
We suggest making adjustments and then resubmitting!
Check out the full feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
🗳️ Delegate
PolkaWorld’s second vote is AYE！
The team has basically addressed all of our concerns: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YlH3kh_uHYDTayCgpxFtDq3VSxeHeNM32clQPQbUFxY/edit?usp=sharing
Regarding the question:
“It seems that your role in this proposal is quite important, and there’s a fair amount of work involved. Why didn’t you apply for funding? Or has this portion of the budget already been covered by other proposals or plans?”
The team’s response was:
Hi @xiaojie_web3world yes and there is more deliverables coming :) The Web3 Foundation funding covers our work on the core operations of NFTmozaic, and we continue to also drive BD for larger opportunities that have potential to be taken to the Web3 Foundation. The NFTMOZAIC MVP GRANTS PROGRAM REF 1570 is for us to be able to do this at a larger scale for more projects that have potential but are not yet ready for Web3 Foundation-level investments. I know there is a lot of information—it would be ideal if we could explain all of it on a call and then address any questions or doubts.
At this point, the team’s responses have resolved all of our concerns, so we are switching our vote to AYE!
Great to see a new version of the program that involves the community — something I believe is essential. Given the nature of Unique Network and the upcoming cross-chain NFT implementation with Asset Hub, this will also help accelerate the adoption of XCM across the entire ecosystem.
I can also personally testify to the great support they offer to teams. SoftLaw, a new project coming to Polkadot, was funded to build an MVP under the previous grant program. Now, I can see that this new bounty program brings the best aspects of the previous version and improves on it with a more polished, community-driven approach.
Yeah, no … after the last eighteen months it’s hard not to feel a little whiplash when someone says “let’s revive consumer-facing NFTs on Polkadot.” Q1 2025 NFT sales volumes are still down ~63 % year-over-year (-76 % in March alone). And broader market trackers show trading-volume attrition of 60 - 70 % since the 2022 peak. Against that backdrop, spending 110 000 DOT on a replicant of CodeCraft raises some questions.
Budget math:
20 × 5 000 DOT = 100 000 DOT in project grants plus 10 % “dev-rel & marketing curators.” But later each project also pays its own dev-rel + marketing exec another 5-10 %. Double skim?
MORE IMPORTANTLY: At 15-20 % mandatory marketing spend, teams could end up with < 3 500 DOT of real build capital—barely a modest hackathon prize.
KPI design
“Unique wallets” + “tx per user.” Both are easily botted and give no view on retention or revenue.
**Focus areas **
Art/collectibles explicitly excluded, yet that vertical still carries what’s left of mainstream mindshare.
Governance opacity
“Council with W3F, Parity, parachains, BD groups” elects curators, but no process, term length, or conflict-of-interest guardrails are specified.
Hard to defend transparency when curator wallets are also taking percentages of every grant.
Until the proposal bakes safeguards in, it reads less like “innovation” and more like a nostalgia tour for JPEG summers past.
I urge everyone to vote NO on this crab.
Edited