Should there be a more defined grant program?

Do you think there should be a formalised or more defined grant program and/or a process for applications?

1: Grant opportunities from Mina Foundation based on what they feel best will take the project forward / and/ support O(1)/MF and their work?
2: Developers with ideas for Snapps / or ecosystem support to Mina
3: Community projects

I believe the more incentives we can give to attract the top talent to build on Mina the better. Would be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.


Sure, I think what you mentioned is crucial for Mina ecosystem to grow.
I would also emphasize the importance of well-defined non-subjective criterias.

Thanks for the reply to the thread, really appreciate your input…

Hope you don’t mind me asking, but what does ‘emphasize the importance of well-defined non-subjective criterias’ mean? :grinning:

1 Like

Thanks @Pete
Some “well-defined non-subjective criterias” would be like:

  • Having a PoC if it is a Snapp and having for it a deployed smart contract on the test or main network.
  • Having a website that:
    1. Describes the project (and clearly mentioning what has been done if any, and what to be done next)
    2. Enables interacting with the deployed smart contract through the website.
    3. Lists the public profile(s) of the team member(s).
  • The code of the PoC is, and the project will be, open-sourced at Github (the license could be also restricted to be one of specific license(s) - like being only MIT, or either MIT or Apache 2.0, for example),
  • The project plan is divided into milestones with an approximate timing of 2 to 4 months each, for example (at every milestone the team would get part of the grant’s money).

A more also “well-defined non-subjective criterias” that could be used to increase the amount of money of the grant:

  • Having already some real users (this means the project is not just at PoC level, but at MVP or beyond).
  • Having more than 1 team member.
  • The project (according to its description) would utilize ZK.
  • The project would enhance Mina Protocol. Or make it more interoperable with other systems, or networks.

This is what comes to my mind. And sure there could be more or less. However, the idea is to encourage people to apply for the grant by giving confidence that their project would not be rejected because of subjective or debatable reasons. Not by eliminating subjectivity completely, because this is not possible, due to human nature. But by making its effect minimal and making it only play a secondary role on, for example, how much the money the team would exactly get, and how long the project would be expected to take…

Wow! I’m glad I asked you for more information. I think you’ve raised some really great talking points.

  • What do you think about collaboration projects with eg, 01 labs or the Mina Foundation with community teams?

  • Do you think there should be ‘X’ amount available for grants annually or on a case by case basis?

  • Who should decide which projects get a greenlight? eg, Do you think some kind of community DAO would work in making decisions?

  • Do you think the community have the sufficient knowledge, experience or insight into making choices about funding projects esp, if they are very technical?

Would be cool to get your feedback on these…