I see a lot of good stuff here and a relatively inexpensive proposal. Some concerns I have (similar to other local nodes):
-
a local incubation program is being proposed. What’s the track record or proof of expertise of the operator? Giving generic startup advise can be counterproductive when the market is saturated with content and there are thousands of entrepreneurship programs. How will this one attract top talent and support them effectively? (note that we have similar concerns about Scroll in general and hence are suggesting more vertical specialisation as a way to differentiate and gather deeper expertise).
-
There seems to be a mix of objectives, on one side builder support (aligned with the intention of the local nodes) and then also governance education and increasing governance participation. I don’t see any rationale for justifying why governance edu/participation should be a priority for Scroll to fund right now in addition to the delegate trainings and delegate incentives. Feels to me that this program would benefit by being more focused on builder support and not governance.
-
how does the community building benefit Scroll? will this be just sponsorship leading to brand awareness or does Scroll get to “own” the relationship and have channels to stay in touch with said participants. I believe generally Web3 ecosystems have a dysfunctional relationship with local community builders, where it’s the vendors who end up owning relationships and the ecosystem spends a lot for very little. This is not an accusation of the proposer here, but more of a generalised issue in Web3 that I believe Scroll needs to avoid if it’s to survive. (see my comments on other local node proposals for additional context on the issue and possible solutions e.g. white labelling events, mailing lists transferred to Scroll Labs, etc)