hello, what is your experience in this field?
who are the team members behind this project? I didn't see any mention in the proposal doc.
@muddlebee This is not a project, it is a bounty proposal to screen and launch 20 projects. As far as NFTMozaic (https://nftmozaic.com) is concerned, Unique.Network's team is behind it's creation, I lead it together with Charu Sethi. The project has support from DF, for many other details see https://nftmozaic.com/blog/nftmozaic-intro/. We are in the process of forming a Council, since it is being built as a Collective of leading NFT projects/people in the ecosystem. Alex D. from Web3 foundation is on it, we offered these roles to a number of people and are in discussions to get the Council to 3-5 members
who are the team members behind this project? I didn't see any mention in the proposal doc.
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.
@15a9uAgkQz3VJEx2ksMxChtQFZohDx8pr6vbEDbMDKagro2b
Thanks for giving the reasons behind your vote, this is very important for OpenGov to function properly, and your thoughts here are highly appreciated.
Let me add to the above comments:
Sincerely,
Alexander
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.
@15a9uAgkQz3VJEx2ksMxChtQFZohDx8pr6vbEDbMDKagro2b
Thanks for giving the reasons behind your vote, this is very important for OpenGov to function properly, and your thoughts here are highly appreciated.
Let me add to the above comments:
Sincerely,
Alexander
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.
Hi there @15a9uAgkQz3VJEx2ksMxChtQFZohDx8pr6vbEDbMDKagro2b,
Thanks for raising these points—constructive scrutiny is important. That said, we’d like to clarify a few key aspects to avoid misunderstandings:
1. This is not about reviving sales volume—it’s about driving utility. We’re well aware of the drop in NFT trading volume, and that’s exactly why this program isn’t focused on collectibles or secondary sales. The next era of NFTs is utility-first: gaming, ticketing, loyalty, digital credentials, and brand engagement. Recent market signals—like a16z Crypto’s $7M investment in an NFT-based ticketing platform—reflect this shift (link).
2. Budget structure is intentional, not bloated. Dev Rel & marketing support - These roles exist to guide early-stage teams that typically focus only on tech and neglect user onboarding. Without this support, many MVPs stall post-hackathon.
3. 15–20% marketing allocation is by design. Early-stage Web3 teams often build in a vacuum. This program ensures they plan for real user feedback and onboarding. Polkadot already has strong tooling—SDKs, APIs, wallets, cross-chain infra—so teams don’t need to build from scratch. They need guidance on how to apply what exists to real problems.
4. The KPIs are project-specific and focused on adoption. Yes, wallets and transactions can be gamed—but they’re a baseline, not the whole picture. Each project will work with curators to define KPIs relevant to their use case. Retention and revenue are longer-term goals—this grant is about finding teams who can reach that stage through actual user traction.
5. Governance and curator selection will be transparent. Curators will be proposed via an open call and vetted by the NFTMozaic Council, as per the process when the grant is approved. Having said that, we are preparing for that in the background and are happy to share more details when we have them.
In summary, this isn’t a repeat of CodeCraft. It builds on its learnings with a sharper focus on product–market fit, guided MVP development, and ecosystem alignment. We believe this is exactly what’s needed to help serious builders deliver real adoption for Polkadot’s consumer-facing future.
If you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to reach out, and we'll be happy to answer those for you.
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.
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.
Powered by Subsocial