Application #3 MP

Application #3

Originally Submitted 5/3/2025 20:24:09

Converted by Lanzer from Google form to Discourse template

Q1 Name of your Grant

MP

Q2 Total Grant amount in USD ($)

2900

Q3 Evaluation Factor – Specific

On my gaming

Q4 Evaluation Factor – Measurable

Am ok with any way

Q5 Evaluation Factor – Accountable

5- @TNchainHub, X link there as primary https://x.com/ramboshakvr?t=ygVTapJEvVvLQQGA737msw&s=09
and secondary
https://x.com/tnchainhub?s=21

Q6 Evaluation Factor – Realistic

On sandbox ecosystem and gaming

Q7 Evaluation Factor – Timely

Already have it all map out

Q8 Evaluation Factor – Disclosure

A lot will benefit from it

Evaluated on 6-May-25

  • Score Total: 14 of 40
  • Additional Input Needed? Yes
  • Approved? Not enough information to reach decision.

Q1: Name of your Grant

  • Score: 3 of 5
  • Decision: Meets the intent of the question. No additional input needed.
  • Rationale: “MP” is vague and doesn’t give an indication of what it is, but it’s still a name.

Q2: Total Grant amount in USD ($)

  • Score: 4 of 5
  • Decision: Meets intent of the question. No additional input needed.
  • Rationale: I’ll be looking for any indication if $3K is not going to achieve the outcome that is in your Specifics eval factor. If so, I’m going to revisit this and question if you input $3K because I put that more than $3K will be scrutinized more.

Q3: Evaluation Factor – Specific

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Doesn’t meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Input is confusing. Does not contain specifics needed to make an assessment.

Q4: Evaluation Factor – Measurable

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Doesn’t meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Input is confusing. Does not contain specifics needed to make an assessment.

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. Rambo’s account (https://x.com/ramboshakvr) is a holder of STK community, shows positive engagement between Rambo and followers. 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. Rambo can be thought of as owning the success or failure of the grant, but TNChainHub cannot.
  • Per Grok: Profile Context: @ramboshakvr, or RamboshakVR, is a tech and gaming enthusiast with a focus on VR, memes, and community engagement. They have 84 followers and follow 182 accounts, indicating a moderately active presence. Their posts are casual, humorous, and often tied to gaming culture, particularly VR-related topics. Content Style: @ramboshakvr interactions typically involve replies, retweets, or quote tweets, often with a playful or sarcastic tone. They engage with both individual users and brands, showing a mix of personal and community-driven conversations.
  • 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.

Q6: Evaluation Factor – Realistic

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Unable to assess this answer against the question’s requirements.

Q7: Evaluation Factor – Timely

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Doesn’t meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Unable to assess this answer against the question’s requirements. Unsure what “already have it mapped out” is referring to.

Q8: Evaluation Factor – Disclosure

  • Score: 1 of 5
  • Decision: Does not meet intent of the question. Additional input needed.
  • Rationale: Unable to assess this answer against the question’s requirements. Unsure who or what “a lot will benefit from it” means.