投票结论：NAY，希望提案改进后再次投票。

理由：该提案试图用小额资金驱动复杂消费应用，但低估了用户获取成本与技术门槛，同时高估了策展机制的公正性。其设计更符合营销叙事需求（如“孵化20个项目”），而非生态真实发展需求。

建议：
缩小范围：精选5-8个项目，将单项目预算提升至 8,000-10,000 DOT，确保开发质量。
调整领域：转向DeFi+基础设施赛道（如AssetHub原生DEX、多链NFT借贷协议）。
强化风控：用户指标需通过链上行为分析，策展人报酬改为固定工资制（避免按项目抽成）

PolkaWorld 对该提案的初始投票为 NAY，所有成员均一致反对，理由如下：

虽然“面向消费者的 NFT 应用”在 Web3 中的探索无疑是重要的方向，但在当前市场环境及 Polkadot 生态条件下，仍存在需要谨慎考量的潜在挑战：

• NFT 用户市场已降温，叙事疲劳现象明显。

• Polkadot 目前尚未建立起强大的 NFT 用户基础。

• 过度依赖 KPI 激励可能导致“数字化优化”而非“真实采用”。

提案内容缺乏清晰度

• 11 万 DOT 如何分配？能否进一步明确其中 10% 预留用于营销和开发的具体用途？NFTMozaic 具体将开发哪些内容？

• 每个项目最多可获得 5,000 DOT，最低金额是多少？资金发放水平如何确定？

• AssetHub 仅预计在 Q3 上线，现在提出此类提案是否为时过早？

• 提案应明确说明任何未使用的资金将返还国库。

• NFTMozaic 在该提案中扮演什么具体角色？其主要职责是什么？

提案预算中未明确列出人员成本。这是否意味着团队成员将自动担任策展人？这引发了关于潜在利益冲突或角色定义不清的担忧。

提案中提到将使用“钱包下载量”作为评估指标，特别提到了 Unique 钱包。这引发了一个疑问：参与项目是否必须构建在 Unique 网络上？如果是，这可能会限制项目多样性和广泛参与度；如果不是，那么将 Unique 钱包作为通用指标可能不合理，需要进一步澄清。

欲查看完整反馈，请访问此处。

需要注意的是，虽然我们投了反对票，但我们也已向团队提出了相关问题，并将在收到他们的回复后考虑进行第二轮评估。

@Lurpis Thanks for feedback, let me try to clarify your concerns on behalf of NFTMozaic, the Bounty proposer:

1. "This proposal attempts to drive complex consumer applications with small amounts of money, but underestimates the user acquisition cost and technical threshold"
   We are not attracting projects to build full applications, but rather just an MVP. There are many projects looking for $200k to build something that we have no idea if they can do it or if the users will like what they built. This program is designed to test that. $25k is enough to make one use case and show what they can do, and then they can prove to OpenGov, Web3f, Web3DealDesk or other sources of funding (VCs) that they are up for it. Not only did we run a very similar program at Unique.Network to learn how this idea works in practice, but have discussed the program with all BD Groups - they loved it as it makes their work much more effective and reduce risks for them and for Polkadot. Some of their representatives will be curators on this bounty (Web3DealDesk, for example).

2. "and overestimates the fairness of the curation mechanism" - we know from practice of over 80 applications and 12+ selected projects on how the curation works in real life and on real projects. We know it works and are happy to replicate it for Polkadot.

3. "Its design is more in line with marketing narrative needs (such as "incubating 20 projects") rather than the real development needs of the ecosystem." - I don't fully understand what you mean here, so sorry if I miss something. Marketing narrative indeed are part of the program, and the outcome will be very valuable for Polkadot's Marketing narratives, yes. But it will be more valuable for BD - as proofs (case studies) for bigger projects that Polkadot is the place where apps like theirs are built. This is an old BD need for getting growth from 0 to flywheel - start small, prove you can do it, then work with big customers in a big way. We do not expect this program in itself to generate big traction numbers quickly, but it will be very effective to incubate enough projects that someone succeeds, while being proof to the large leads.

4. "Recommendations:
   Narrow the scope: Select 5-8 projects and increase the budget of each project to 8,000-10,000 DOT to ensure development quality."
   This is not in the interest of Polkadot - there are plenty of other sources of funding in that range that are focused on building, rather then launching something. Instead, we focus on early mistakes and giving larger funding those that passed the initial test. And the numbers (8-10) are too small in our view for Polkadot to start growing - in Unique, a much smaller chain, we had 12 projects launched in a year.
   We will do that as a plan B if this proposal fails, yes, but the result will be less then what we can do.

5. "Adjustment areas: Turn to the DeFi+ infrastructure track (such as AssetHub native DEX, multi-chain NFT lending protocol)."
   We do not intend to dive into high value Collectable NFTs use cases at all - this would not be an effective spending of Polkadot's money, as we have seen in previous projects. The DeFi on them - same thing. There are many other NFT use cases that you don't know about and we do, and we're here to show them to all. These use cases are where NFT as a technology has actual utility. Term "NFT" is tainted by the bust of its first use case (Collectables), but we can't find a good substitute - Utility NFTs, Web3DRM, etc. But use cases are real and growing in Gaming (see Mythical and this weeks AAG for TapNation), AI and Fan Engagement. SalesHub has done a lot of research and they came to the same conclusion.

6. "Strengthen risk control: User indicators need to be analyzed through on-chain behavior, and curator remuneration is changed to a fixed salary system (avoid commissions based on projects)"
   We do have experience in analyzing project traction, we've worked with many on this. As for curator compensation - we will consult with OpenGov participants on this, if your views are supported by the majority we will do it that way. Our understanding is that 10% is standard in the ecosystem and most bounties use that. Happy to change it though, it's not our call. This will be handled in the second referenda - to choose the curators, not in this one.

Hope I've shed some light on the topics of your concerns, happy to address any other.
Alex Mitrovich