Thanks for this proposal, I see some good stuff here (post-hackathon head hunting, Mexican focused research, cocreating dao pathways, etc.). At the same time, I’m struggling to support it. Let me try to unpack:
For a grant program to request this, I’m concerned it attracts only low-quality builders. If I can raise a million or two from investors, why would I take a few thousand and then be locked into an ecosystem? The risk of lock-in is high for a project, especially when Scroll is embryonic.
Who will lead the program design? have they gotten a track record of building successful startups (serial entrepreneur) or have they at least led accelerator programs or the like? If we’re going to give advise to founders, are we sure we’re giving the right advise? There are soooo many startup programs out there, what gives ours an USP (something that adds value to builders/specific builder segment)?
From the above, I’m tempted to suggest taking out the Builder Program, also, as that’s exactly the type of effort that would be better executed with vertical specialisation and is closer to what Labs is already doing.
Then, the research to map the local ecosystem feels like valuable intelligence to have and having presence in the local ecosystem is likely valuable (our research points in this direction, more to come very soon in the final report).
As for the vertical specialisation, the more I think about it, the more I think the effort needs to be larger and more coordinated than each local node picking 2-3 verticals. Unless Scroll’s brand and positioning is strongly focused, I struggle to see what differentiation Scroll has. The risk is lacking enough clarity and repetition in comms to create a distinct positioning in the minds of the broader ecosystem.