Application #2 Solid rock

The Sandbox DAO Grant Program OPEN: Community Engagement
1

Application #2

Originally Submitted 5/3/2025 15:24:52
Converted by Lanzer from Google form to Discourse template

Q1 Name of your Grant

Solid rock

Q2 Total Grant amount in USD ($)

4

Q3 Evaluation Factor – Specific

  1. Launch of a Fully Functional MVP (Minimum Viable Product):

A publicly accessible, open-source platform with core features implemented (e.g., user dashboard, coordination tools, analytics layer).

Hosted on a decentralized infrastructure or IPFS with documentation.

  1. User Adoption and Community Engagement:

At least 100 unique users onboarded within the first three months of launch.

Feedback collected through surveys or interviews to inform iterative improvements.

  1. Sustainability and Ecosystem Integration:

A clear roadmap and governance plan published to guide ongoing development beyond the grant period.

Q4 Evaluation Factor – Measurable

Here’s a version of your milestone section that meets Lanzer’s criteria:

Milestones and Payment Structure

  1. Milestone 1: Project Setup and Initial Deliverables (30%)

Complete team onboarding and assign responsibilities

Finalize detailed project plan with timelines and deliverables

Deliver initial prototypes or baseline assessments (if applicable)

  1. Milestone 2: Midpoint Progress and Key Outputs (40%)

Achieve major technical or operational development targets

Provide interim report including progress metrics and challenges

Demonstrate working versions or outputs of core components

  1. Milestone 3: Final Implementation and Reporting (30%)

Deliver final product or service as defined in grant outcomes

Submit final report with outcome data, lessons learned, and sustainability plan

Conduct presentation or demo for grant committee (if required)

Total Payment Allocation: 30% + 40% + 30% = 100% .

Q5 Evaluation Factor – Accountable

https://x.com/tnchainhub?s=21

https://x.com/solid_rock1?t=6qwfbRwBIg3_2InfNIrcOw&s=09

Q6 Evaluation Factor – Realistic

"1. Watch the Timestamp (29:54–31:00)
This segment likely highlights Sandbox’s goals, priorities, or impact expectations. Listen for mentions of:

Ecosystem growth

Creator and player engagement

Technical innovations

Community development

Alignment with Sandbox’s purpose (e.g. metaverse ownership, gaming experiences)

  1. Match Claimed Impacts Against These Points

Does the grant show clear, logical alignment with the goals outlined in the video?

Are the impacts tangible and measurable (e.g. number of users onboarded, new experiences created, land sales, avatar/item use)?

Are any impacts vague or disconnected from Sandbox’s core purpose?

  1. Evaluate for Clarity

If the claimed impacts aren’t directly supported by the video segment, does the grant author explain how they still connect to Sandbox in a meaningful and plausible way?

Are these explanations clear and well-reasoned, or do they rely on assumptions?

"

Q7 Evaluation Factor – Timely

  1. Does the timeline end by August 30th (SGDP program deadline)?

Are all deliverables, launches, or milestones clearly scheduled to complete by or before August 30, 2025?

If any items go beyond this date, does the grant justify why and how it will still benefit Sandbox or the SGDP?

  1. Is the timeline clearly laid out?

Does the proposal include a calendar-based schedule, phases, or roadmap?

Are dates specific (e.g. “July 15: Beta launch”) or vague (e.g. “Q3 tasks”)?

  1. Are timelines tied to measurable milestones?

For each phase or date, is there a clear, tangible deliverable (e.g. “Playable experience ready,” “5,000 users onboarded”)?

Are milestones realistic and achievable given the team size and scope?

  1. Red Flags to Note:

Missing dates or fuzzy time ranges

Deliverables that cluster too close to the deadline

Q8 Evaluation Factor – Disclosure

  1. Are the disclosed persons findable online?

Check for transparency: Do the names link to verifiable LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), websites, or professional bios?

If names are pseudonyms, is there a clear trail to real-world identities or credible web3 profiles?

  1. Is their affiliation clearly stated?

Does the grant identify what organization, DAO, studio, or collective they represent?

Are there links or context (e.g., “Jane Doe, co-founder of Vox Studio [LinkedIn link]”)?

  1. Is how they benefit clearly explained?

Does the proposal detail what type of benefit each person or group receives (e.g. grant funding, consulting fees, token distribution, DAO voting power)?

Are amounts or percentages mentioned, or at least a general scope of benefit?

2

Evaluated on 6-May-25

  • Score Total: 18 of 40
  • Additional Input Needed? Yes
  • Approved? Not enough information to reach decision.

Q1: Name of your Grant

  • Score: 5 of 5
  • Decision: Meets the intent of the question. No additional input needed.
  • Rationale: “Solid rock” is vague, but it’s still a name.

Q2: Total Grant amount in USD ($)

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Doesn’t meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: You want $4 USD? I think this is a typo.

Q3: Evaluation Factor – Specific

  • Score: 4 of 5
  • Decision: Meets intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Input is confusing and describes the MVP of a system or website or software, but doesn’t detail enough how it impacts the Sandbox Ecosystem or what it this MVP is. It mentions a dashboard and stuff, but this isn’t enough to determine what this is without more context.

Q4: Evaluation Factor – Measurable

  • Score: 4 of 5
  • Decision: Somewhat meets intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: ChatGPT intro aside in “Here’s a version of your milestone section that meets Lanzer’s criteria” … It isn’t clear how these milestones are measurable to the specific outcomes of Q3. I’m unsure if the “deliver product or service” in Milestone 3 means this is a blanket statement with no real substance behind it.

Q5: Evaluation Factor – Accountable

  • Score: 2 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Did not provide 2 ways to reach each contact. TNChainHub is difficult to analyze, they have something that looks like a poem pinned to their X account and some user interaction, but difficult to tell what they do. Solid_Rock seems to be centered around reposting web3 projects. Neither can be thought of as owning the success or failure of the grant.
  • Per Grok: The X account @TNchainHub
    appears to be associated with The Open Network (TON), a decentralized layer-1 blockchain. However, there is insufficient publicly available data from the account’s posts to provide a detailed analysis, as the prompt indicates not enough posts are available to summarize. Below is a general analysis based on the context of TON and related information from the web, as the account likely relates to this blockchain ecosystem.
  • Per Grok: @solid_rock1 is a crypto enthusiast and community supporter, hyping DeFi projects like Berachain and rallying genuine fans for fair giveaways. solid_rock1’s hyping NFT projects like MegaRabbitNFT and cheering on crypto pals with LFG vibes

Q6: Evaluation Factor – Realistic

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: ChatGPT answer that didn’t answer the question, it reads like a prompt to answer the question.

Q7: Evaluation Factor – Timely

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: ChatGPT answer that didn’t answer the question, it reads like a prompt to answer the question.

Q8: Evaluation Factor – Disclosure

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: ChatGPT answer that didn’t answer the question, it reads like a prompt to answer the question.
3

grant-rejected

Application #2 has gone 30 days without response from the grant applicant and did not answer application as required. It is disapproved.

image
image1747×530 73 KB