Really appreciate this thread, and especially the range of perspectives here. A few thoughts:
@cap and @Arnold both touched on something I think deserves more attention: the evaluation framework. Whether SPP3 runs through a committee or delegates, the underlying challenge is the same. Someone has to read dozens of applications, compare teams working on wildly different verticals (protocol work vs. growth vs. infra vs. governance tooling), and make funding decisions with incomplete context.
The committee vs. delegate debate is important, but it’s really a question about who evaluates. There’s an equally important question about what they’re evaluating and how well the pipeline is structured before it reaches them.
A few things I’ve seen work well in other grant programs:
-
Pre-qualification layers that score teams on traction, technical readiness, and ecosystem fit before they enter the review queue. This reduces ops burden and lets reviewers (whether delegates or committee members) focus on strategic fit.
-
Standardized application packages with clear milestones, KPIs, and success criteria baked in. Defining what success looks like and how it’s measured from the start.
-
Ongoing lifecycle tracking post-funding. @lightwalker.eth and @Premm.eth both flagged the importance of accountability. The 40-60% milestone failure rate across Web3 grants programs is somewhat well-documented, and most of that stems from weak scoping upfront.
@Premm.eth’s two-tier idea (new teams at $100-300k, established teams at $300k+) is smart and maps well to how traditional grant programs separate early-stage discovery from continuation funding. Each tier benefits from different evaluation criteria.
Shill alert: For what it’s worth, this is exactly the kind of grants infrastructure work we do at Anode. We’re building deal flow and pre-qualification pipelines.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops.