Polkapad’s goal is to integrate the best, most feasible and ambitious projects into the PolkaDot ecosystem and the crypto-community in general by connecting them to their communities. This makes a well balanced and thorough process of selecting candidate’s projects a crucial aspect in obtaining this goal.
The step of reviewing a project serves the interests of each party involved in a launching and fundraising process:
- Interest of developers, searching for the means of getting their project up and running. It is done by setting a standard and a frame of work for developers, which helps them to gain a more predictable and expected result for their startup.
- Interest of supporters. Having a strict trustability threshold minimizes risks for potential supporters investing in projects allocated on our platform.
- Our interest in long-term sustainability of Polkapad. Casting potentially successful projects helps us build the reputation and trustability of our platform.
In our approach to selecting potential projects for launches we equally value experience and innovation. It really takes those two factors together to make a startup work. And this approach is reflected in the flexibility of our project evaluation process.
Now let’s go over the core metrics we use to determine if the project is viable for a launch on our platform.
First off, relevant experience in the crypto sphere can sufficiently boost chances for a project to successfully pass our evaluation and get allocated. It holds especially true for experience in project development. Familiarity with the matter will almost certainly positively affect the workflow. They tend to have a more robust, comprehensive and vision on the practical and financial side of things.
And teams or individuals with victories behind their backs, or even scars from previous rough but valuable trials and tribulations of project development will obviously gain some trust points in this aspect.
However, as important as this aspect is, it is not uncompromisingly decisive. We are open to consider projects from less renowned teams. Yet, their background will still play a role in our final decision.
This one is a chance for those with less big titles behind their backs to shine and show what they’re capable of.
A good Github portfolio can say a lot about the value of products, which the team is willing to bring into the community. It is both the quantity and quality of the work that will be taken into the account.
A GitHub portfolio demonstrates for us:
- How skilled our candidates are for executing their projects’ objectives.
- How influent candidates are in the communities
- How candidate can evolve, refactor when necessary, use best practices, design patterns etc;
Inspection of GitHub can also give us a chance to evaluate if the team is capable of bringing innovation into the community and ecosystem or if they might become a solid competitor for similar projects on the existing market.
Support from Funds
Teams and projects, which managed to gain confidence and support from Funds are likely to gain some trust-points too. Essentially, this gives us another voice in favor of moving a project forward, and can in some cases. Yet, the support from major funds alone is not likely to land project allocation on Polkapad just by that virtue alone. We believe in conducting our own highly professional and thorough research before coming to a decision, and even a well-supported project might get a pass if it conflicts with the interests and values of our company and our supporters.
Of all the other stated criteria, vesting periods and lockups are the ones holding critical importance for us. This is one of the cornerstones of risk management for crypto startups.
Proportions of lockups, their distribution model and period are major tells of the team’s intentions. A balanced lockup period shows the team’s interest in long-term development of their project and stability of the whole ecosystem. It also helps our platform minimize market stress both for supporters and our reputation.
We value not only high community engagement, but high stability for our platform, which is usually synonymous with longer lockup periods. As of right now, we have currently set a threshold of a 1-year minimum lockup period after TGEs. There are strict requirements for unlocking period’s for tokens, set aside for developing teams too.
Brand deals, honorable mentions, hype – all that good stuff can also oil up the approval process for a project on Polkapad. It can definitely act as a strong argument towards moving a project forward. But then again, it has to be complementary to other positives in our review and won’t land a project approval in case of, say, a too short unlocking period or an objectively weak development team behind the project.
Most importantly, the tokenomics behind the project has to make sense, and do so on a macro-scale too. In other words, even the most polished startup idea needs its market. And if the candidate is aiming at a couple hundred or thousand of people’s worth of market share, we’re most likely going to have to give this project a pass as it is just not worth the resources allocated for its listing and support. We are all in for use-cases that will truly serve the community and drive the development and not just take up space.
We stand firmly committed to our goal – to help the best teams connect with the best communities for improved scalability. Our metrics and criteria are what makes the “best teams” part of this statement verifiable. This is a reflection of our values and a helpful tool to stay committed to them, always.