Summary

1. About this Report
2. Proposal-Info
3. ANALYSIS
1. ■Impact on the Ecosystem
2. ■Governance Compliance
3. ■Cost-Benefit Ratio
4. ■Transparency and Traceability
5. ■Track Record and Credibility
4. Evaluation
5. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals as objectively, effectively, and transparently as possible. The goal is to create clear and structured decision-making foundations for our own voting—and to make these visible to the community.

Proposal-Info

NFT Mozaic’s MVP Grants Program

Track: 34 | Origin: BigSpender | Amount:

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

NFTMozaic is planning a results-driven funding initiative aimed at supporting up to 20 early-stage, consumer-facing NFT applications within the Polkadot ecosystem. The program emphasizes actual user adoption over mere demonstration MVPs.

Ecosystem Impact

The initiative seeks to bridge the critical gap between hackathon prototypes and real-world usable applications, with the goal of attracting more end users to the Polkadot ecosystem and promoting NFT use cases beyond art and collectibles.

Proposed Action

NFTMozaic is requesting 110,000 DOT (of which 100,000 DOT are earmarked directly for grants and 10% allocated to curators) to support approximately 20 projects. Each project may receive up to 5,000 DOT, with 70% of the funding tied to usage metrics and 15–20% allocated to marketing efforts.

Expected Outcomes

The program aims to foster the development of roughly 20 usable NFT applications that achieve real user traction. Successful projects are expected to be referred to ecosystem business development organizations for further support, following the example of previous pilot projects that reached up to 11,000 users.

■Question 1 of 19

Does the proposal measurably contribute to the long-term development, adoption, resilience, or relevance of Polkadot?

The proposal aims to increase Polkadot’s user base and visibility in Web3 applications by selectively funding up to 20 consumer-oriented NFT MVPs. By tying funding to specific onboarding metrics, it creates incentives for genuine user acquisition rather than mere technical demonstrations. This could lead to more real-world use cases, a stronger community, and higher adoption in the medium term. However, sustainability remains uncertain, as no clear mechanisms are defined for the continued development of successful MVPs beyond the initial phase. The impact on network resilience is indirect, primarily strengthening the diversity of applications and user base rather than technical or economic robustness.

Justification

The funding addresses a known bottleneck between hackathon prototypes and market-ready applications, which is a strategic contribution. Linking funds to user metrics is innovative and can lead to measurable outcomes. However, the lack of a scaling strategy for successful projects limits the potential for sustainable development.

Response:
Appreciate the thoughtful feedback. You're absolutely right—5,000 DOT is not meant to fund full-scale products. It’s designed to help teams build and launch a focused MVP with clear user outcomes, bridging the gap between concept and traction. The scaling strategy is not lacking, though, it’s simply not communicated in the proposal.
To support the next stage, we’ve already aligned with BD initiatives like Deal Desk, Mangenta Labs, PoKe and others, who’ve agreed to review successful MVPs for further support. We have spoken with VCs in the ecosystem who loved the idea as it gives them a concrete way to test how the teams perform. There are few other venues for further support of successful projects - Web3f, OpenGov, etc. There are preparations happening now for a wider and integrated support system, but this program serves as the first and necessary step. For now, our focus is on executing this phase with precision and impact.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 7/10 underestimates the strategic importance of the proposal. The team’s response demonstrates a well-thought-out scaling strategy with existing agreements with BD initiatives such as Deal Desk, Mangenta Labs, and PoKe for follow-on support. This structured approach to bridging the critical gap between hackathon prototypes and market-ready applications justifies a higher score of 8/10.

Score: 8/10

■Question 2 of 19

What sustainable added value does the proposal bring to the Polkadot ecosystem in the long term, beyond the immediate project duration?

The proposal promises sustainable added value by kickstarting the development of B2C NFT applications with a strong user focus, thereby unlocking new use cases for Polkadot. Targeted funding for projects aimed at user acquisition and retention could lead to a more diverse and active community in the long term. However, it remains unclear how many funded MVPs will persist and evolve beyond the funding phase, as no structured follow-up funding or incubation mechanisms are outlined.

Justification

The long-term impact hinges on whether MVPs continue to grow post-funding. Without clear follow-up structures, there is a risk that many projects may stagnate or cease after the funding phase. Sustainable added value is present but limited by the lack of a scaling strategy.

Response:
See above for the answers to these concerns. We would encourage you to take a look at the track record for Unique.Network, where we tried the approach (https://unique.subscan.io/tools/charts?type=fee). While the startups do often fail, they produce MVPs, which are then used as case studies to prove building dApps on Polkadot is quick and easy, which then attracts big accounts. This is a very important impact of this effort to have in mind.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 6/10 was too conservative. The team references Unique Network’s track record, where similar approaches led to measurable results. The emphasis on MVPs as case studies to demonstrate the feasibility of dApp development on Polkadot is an underrated strategic value. A re-evaluation to 7/10 is justified.

Score: 7/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal explicitly addresses the gap between hackathons and usable, production-ready applications in the Polkadot ecosystem. It responds to the frequently criticized issue that many projects stall after hackathons due to a lack of targeted support for the phase between prototype and market readiness. By linking funding to user metrics, it creates a more structured transition to practical implementation.

Justification

The identified weakness is real and acknowledged by numerous ecosystem stakeholders. The program offers a concrete, albeit MVP-focused, solution. However, its sustainability remains uncertain without follow-up funding or clear scaling mechanisms.

Score: 8/10

■Question 4 of 19

Does the proposal promote interoperability, user retention, or parachain development?

The proposal supports the development of NFT applications that explicitly leverage Polkadot’s advantages, such as cross-chain capabilities and low transaction costs, thereby promoting interoperability at the application level. User retention is strengthened by requiring 70% of funds to be tied to onboarding metrics. However, there is no direct contribution to parachain development, as the program primarily focuses on projects on the Asset Hub and does not mandate specific parachain integrations or innovations.

Justification

Support for interoperability and user retention is evident, though the focus is more on user acquisition than long-term retention. Parachain development benefits only indirectly, as no targeted measures promote new parachains or technical innovations at this level.


Response:
While values listed are crucial for long term success, Rome wasn’t built in a day. This proposal is on purpose focused on a narrow list of objectives, because you can’t do everything all at once. If you try to accomplish that, you lose efficiency. There are other programs in Polkadot ecosystem that focus on Interoperability, User retention and parachain (roll up) development. For example - we are actively enabling the technical infrastructure and producing educational resources to support NFT XCM adoption—these will be made available through platforms like Polkadot Wiki, PBA, and other community learning tracks. The projects that we fund through this bounty will be educated in it and will be encouraged to come up with use cases for that.
For user retention, the first step is to onboard users to begin with. Follow up programs will/do assist projects to engage and retain users.
Parachain (or rollup) development is indeed not the focus here - as witnessed by the churn in parachains Polkadot experienced in the last couple of years, very few ideas and projects are ready for that product. We focus on PolkadotHub. When projects grow, they can consider PolkadotCloud.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 6/10 was fair, but the team’s response demonstrates a deliberate strategic focus. The team convincingly explains that a broader approach reduces efficiency and that other programs in the ecosystem pursue complementary goals. The score is therefore adjusted to 7/10.

Score: 7/10

■Sources

■Result category 1

Total score: 30/40 | Average: 7.50/10 (75%)

■Question 5 of 19

Does the proposal clearly fall within the scope of the chosen origin (Treasury, Tipper, Spender)?

The proposal requests 110,000 DOT and was submitted under the “BigSpender” track. Per the official OpenGov track table, the “BigSpender” track is designated for expenditures up to 1,000,000 DOT. The requested amount is well within this limit, and the funding purpose—financing a grants program for NFT MVPs—clearly falls within the scope of the Treasury or Spender tracks. The track selection is thus correct and complies with governance guidelines.

Justification

The requested amount and funding purpose align precisely with the BigSpender track requirements. There is no exceedance or misapplication of track limits, and the fund usage is Treasury-compliant.

Score: 10/10

■Question 6 of 19

Are there previous proposals with comparable content, and if so, what were their outcomes?

Several comparable funding proposals exist in the Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems, particularly for NFT and dApp grants. A notable example is Unique Network’s CodeCraft program, which funded multiple small NFT MVPs in 2024 with goals similar to NFTMozaic. Such programs were generally well-received if they demonstrated transparent fund usage and clear success metrics. However, proposals with insufficient transparency or weak performance records were rejected or deferred. The success rate of comparable initiatives is solid, provided governance requirements are met.

Justification

Historical data indicates that comparable funding projects are viable and successful when they meet formal and substantive criteria. Compliance with governance rules is a critical success factor.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is used meaningfully in this proposal. The requested amount aligns clearly with the BigSpender track’s scope, and the funding goal serves a strategic network interest. The submission is transparent, allowing the community to review and discuss fund usage. There is no evidence that the system is overburdened or misused by this proposal.

Justification

The proposal’s formal and substantive alignment is correct. Governance structures are utilized as intended, and the community can fully participate.

Score: 9/10

■Sources

■Result category 2

Total score: 27/30 | Average: 9.00/10 (90%)

■Question 8 of 19

Is the requested amount proportionate to the potential or demonstrated benefit?

The requested 110,000 DOT (approx. $550,000 USD) is ambitious relative to the expected benefit. The program aims to fund up to 20 user-focused NFT MVPs, with funds tied to onboarding metrics. Potential benefits include increased user adoption, new use cases, and enhanced visibility for Polkadot in the NFT sector. However, the NFT market is currently declining, and it is uncertain how many funded projects will deliver sustainable value. Comparable programs like Unique Network’s CodeCraft achieved individual MVPs with up to 11,000 users, but it is unclear if these results are replicable. Overall, the requested amount appears high relative to the demonstrable, long-term benefit, given the risk that many MVPs may not progress beyond the funding phase.

Justification

Tying funds to user metrics is innovative and may drive short-term adoption, but sustainable, demonstrable value remains uncertain. The budget size is ambitious for a pilot program in the current market environment.

Response:
We agree that budget size may be called “ambitious”, but this is a relative assessment - how many applications are currently running on AssetHub? Low single digits. This proposal if implemented will significantly improve that, that in itself is a big benefit and comparing the funding that was given to the existing ones to this proposal gives a very high efficiency mark (which is what’s needed).
While the Collectables NFT market is declining (which is why we specifically exclude them from the bounty scope), the other use cases for NFTs are growing, and we are focusing on high growth areas. These are projects that typically have a relatively low investment needs into the technical side of expenses, but are rather focused on real world integrations, and as such may have a much higher value for the chain. Engagement, stickiness and longevity are all much better in such use cases.
As for replicability of success - we have a pipeline of over a dozen projects lined up for this effort, and with the experience of prior success know exactly how to get more and how to efficiently help them to have a higher chance of success. Therefore, we are aiming not to replicate prior success, but to improve it.

Re-evaluation:
The original score was 5/10. The team’s response highlights that there are currently few applications running on AssetHub, and this proposal can significantly improve that situation. Compared to previous Treasury funding, this approach offers high efficiency through strict curation and performance-based funding. Re-evaluation: 7/10.

Score: 7/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

Compared to similar funding programs in the Polkadot ecosystem, such as Unique Network’s CodeCraft, the per-MVP budget (up to 5,000 DOT) is comparable. However, the total budget of 110,000 DOT is at the upper end for pilot programs. Other Treasury projects funding infrastructure, wallets, or community events often operate within similar or lower budget ranges, especially for experimental programs. The additional 10% allocation for curators and marketing is industry-standard but not particularly cost-efficient.

Justification

The budget aligns with comparable programs but is not notably cost-effective. A lower total budget could have been considered for an experimental MVP funding program.

Response:
The assumption that this is a pilot program or an experimental one is incorrect - we did the pilot at Unique, funded over a dozen projects with over 80 projects applying. We do not see any need for pilots or experiments - Polkadot (and PolkadotHub) is not Unique - it’s market clout (and cap) are much bigger, and 20 projects for a year is just a good start - not too little to be a pilot or experiment, nor too big so that it doesn’t underperform. The 10% allocation for curators is - standard in Polkadot, and if Polkadot changes it’s standard - we will as well. NFT Mozaic team members will not get this fee, only the external curators that are attracted and confirmed by the OpenGov in a follow up referenda, which is the way things work in the OpenGov.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 6/10 was based on the incorrect assumption of a “pilot program.” The team clarifies that a successful pilot was already conducted at Unique Network with over 80 applications and a dozen funded projects. This experience justifies the proposed budget. Re-evaluation: 7/10.

Score: 7/10

■Question 10 of 19

What specific added value does the Treasury or network gain in return for this expenditure?

The specific added value for the Treasury and network lies in targeted funding for end-user applications that position Polkadot as a platform for innovative NFT solutions. By tying funds to onboarding metrics, projects are incentivized to attract real users. The network potentially benefits from new use cases, increased visibility in the NFT sector, and greater application diversity on the Polkadot Asset Hub. However, whether this value is sustainable beyond short-term onboarding effects remains uncertain, as no follow-up funding or incubation structure is planned.

Justification

The short-term value is clear, but long-term benefits depend heavily on the continued development of MVPs and actual user retention.

Response:
That’s a fair point. This program is designed to get teams from idea to live, user-tested MVPs. But it’s not the end of the journey—projects that show real traction will have clear pathways for follow-on support and scale, as described in the answer to the Question 1 above. Every VC and funding source in Polkadot we spoke to in preparation for this proposal has said this set up is perfect as an entry point for them - it will help validate projects with a small price tag attached on all key criteria - product, marketing, community.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 6/10 is strengthened by the team’s responses. The explanation of clear pathways for successful projects and confirmation from VCs in the ecosystem about the suitability as an entry point increases the perceived value. Re-evaluation: 7/10.

Score: 7/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly address cheaper alternatives or staged funding approaches. There is no indication that a smaller pilot phase with a reduced budget or a stronger focus on follow-up financing was evaluated. The option of initially funding fewer MVPs and scaling the program based on proven results is also not discussed.

Justification

The lack of engagement with alternative, more cost-efficient approaches weakens the proposal’s cost-benefit ratio.

Response:
1. This bounty is a cheaper alternative to most of Treasury proposals - heavily curated and funding projects only AFTER they deliver technical and user traction milestones.
2. The reasons for choosing the budget size are discussed above (Question 9)
3. The follow up financing question is discussed throughout multiple questions above.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 3/10 was critical but fair. However, the team convincingly argues that this approach is already a cheaper alternative to most Treasury proposals, as it is highly curated and funds projects only after milestones are achieved. Re-evaluation: 6/10.

Score: 6/10

■Sources

■Result category 3

Total score: 27/40 | Average: 6.75/10 (68%)

■Question 12 of 19

Is it clearly communicated how and for what purposes funds will be used—including KPIs, milestones, metrics?

The proposal communicates that funds will be used to support up to 20 MVPs in B2C NFT applications on Polkadot. It specifies that 70% of the funds are tied to onboarding metrics, such as wallet creation and on-chain activity, and that 15–20% must be allocated to marketing efforts. Project selection and oversight will be handled by a curator council. However, specific, measurable KPIs, such as the number of new users, transactions, or project-specific milestones, are not detailed. Fund usage is broadly understandable but lacks a granular, verifiable breakdown and clear target values.

Justification

The purpose of the funds and general objectives are clear, but the absence of detailed KPIs and milestones hinders precise tracking and evaluation of project success.

Response:
KPIs are defined at the level which is possible at this stage:
1. Working prototype
2. User campaign
Each project will work with curators to define custom KPIs and milestones based on their use case, technical scope, and user goals.
This tailored approach ensures relevance and accountability—rather than applying a one-size-fits-all metric—and all milestones will be documented as part of the grant agreement for transparent tracking. Defining detailed KPIs for all projects is currently not possible, nor is it desirable.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 5/10 can be slightly raised. The team explains that custom KPIs and milestones will be developed with curators. Re-evaluation: 6/10.

Score: 6/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal outlines a total budget of 110,000 DOT, comprising 100,000 DOT for grants and 10% for curators and marketing. Each project is allocated up to 5,000 DOT, with the exact amount determined by the curator team. However, there is no detailed breakdown of individual cost items, no timelines for funding phases, and no clearly defined work packages or milestone plans for funded projects. The information remains at a high level of abstraction, limiting precise traceability of fund usage over time.

Justification

While the total budget is transparent, the lack of detailed timelines and work packages hinders structured oversight and tracking.

Response:
This proposal is a bounty, not a specific project. Detailed timelines and work packages are to be determined for each project. We do offer structure for this with 2 milestones - MVP launch and a user campaign. Each project will get funded only AFTER delivery of each of these milestones, which will not only provide transparency, but what we lack most in the ecosystem - accountability. We currently have projects that promise many things, but there is no mechanism to hold them accountable to any of it. This structure and innovation we propose turns things around. Is that not an improvement of OpenGov funding?

Re-evaluation
The original score of 4/10 remains appropriate. While the team explains that detailed timelines will be developed, the overall structure remains at a high level of abstraction. The discrepancy between stated intentions (“timelines and work packages will be set for each project”) and the actual, currently assessable design of the proposal remains significant. Even if this is inherent to the nature of the proposal, it inevitably leaves considerable subjective discretion to the curators.

Score: 4/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal stipulates that fund disbursements are tied to onboarding metrics and user activity. However, no specific quantitative or qualitative success criteria are provided for evaluating projects upon completion. Additionally, no overarching success metrics or benchmarks are defined for the program as a whole to enable later evaluation.

Justification

General success criteria exist, but the lack of clear, measurable, and verifiable standards limits the ability to evaluate the program’s outputs and outcomes.

Response:
You're right that clear, verifiable standards are essential—and that’s why each grantee will work with curators to define project-specific milestones and KPIs tied to both technical delivery and user adoption. These will be documented and tracked as part of the grant agreement.
It’s also important to note that delivering a functional MVP with a real user experience is, in itself, a meaningful milestone. Hackathons typically produce prototypes, not usable products. They’re valuable for testing tools and gathering feedback—but they rarely result in sustained engagement or deployed dApps.
This program is the first structured attempt to close that gap: to help promising builders stay in the ecosystem and launch something real. And that, in itself, is a major step forward.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 4/10 can be raised to 5/10, as the team’s responses indicate that project-specific milestones will be documented and tracked, even though explicit reporting requirements are still missing.

Score: 5/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not explicitly commit to regular documentation or reporting. While the curator team’s role in project selection and oversight is mentioned, there are no clear requirements for public reports, audits, or transparent progress updates. Although NFTMozaic has published blog posts and updates for past initiatives, no binding, systematic reporting framework is specified for this funding program.

Justification

The absence of explicit reporting and documentation requirements significantly weakens the program’s transparency and traceability.

Response:
We recognize that early-stage teams may be hesitant to publicly share detailed MVP plans, especially in competitive or sensitive contexts. To balance transparency with confidentiality, we can implement a system where NFTMozaic Council members reveal key details under NDA.
That said, all funded projects will be required to launch public onboarding campaigns and report measurable outcomes—such as user metrics and milestone completion—which will be shared back with the community to ensure accountability and traceability.

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 3/10 can be raised to 6/10, as the team’s responses indicate that project-specific milestones will be documented and tracked, even though explicit reporting requirements are still missing.

Score: 6/10

■Sources

■Result category 4

Total score: 21/40 | Average: 5.25/10 (53%)

■Question 16 of 19

Have the proposers or involved organizations made verifiable, traceable contributions to the ecosystem?

NFTMozaic received a Decentralized Futures Grant from the Web3 Foundation and emerged as an initiative of Unique Network, which has been active as Polkadot’s first NFT parachain since 2021. Unique Network and its team, particularly co-founder Alexander Mitrovich, have made verifiable contributions to NFT development on Polkadot, including the introduction of NFT XCM (Cross-Chain NFTs), developer environments, and record-breaking NFT mintings. However, NFTMozaic itself is a nascent initiative with a primarily strategic and coordinating role to date.

Justification

The connection to Unique Network and Web3 Foundation funding are strong indicators of credibility and ecosystem integration. However, NFTMozaic as a standalone entity has yet to deliver independently verifiable, publicly traceable projects.

Response:
NFTMozaic is 6 months old now, and has submitted 2 quarterly deliverables to Web3f, which has pretty strong acceptance criteria and accountability processes. While NFTMozaic itself does not do products/projects, its work is already visible for example in the Education materials it created for learning about building NFT dApps in Polkadot. Here’s the link for that:
https://wiki.nftmozaic.com/docs/category/polkadot-nfts---what-they-offer
Also, please take a look at NFTMozaic Q1 Deliverables: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/nftmozaic-updates-and-next-steps/12351/4

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 7/10 was too conservative. NFTMozaic has already submitted two quarterly deliverables to the Web3 Foundation and developed concrete educational materials and technical resources. Re-evaluation: 8/10.

Score: 8/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

The primary successful projects stem from Unique Network, the initiator of NFTMozaic. These include the introduction of NFT XCM, the execution of the CodeCraft grant program funding over a dozen MVPs, and technical milestones such as minting 100,000 NFTs in under 19 minutes. NFTMozaic itself has no completed projects to date, as it remains in the setup and coordination phase.

Justification

The track record relies heavily on Unique Network’s achievements. NFTMozaic benefits from this history but cannot yet present its own completed projects.

Response:
NFTMozaic is indeed a relatively new initiative, but it has already delivered independently verifiable outputs that go beyond its connection to Unique Network.
In a short span, we’ve published technical research and benchmarking reports covering NFT pallets across the ecosystem, helping projects make informed architectural decisions. We also aligned early with the Polkadot Hub vision and enabled Unique Network SDKs to work seamlessly on AssetHub.
This was tested live during the Consensus hackathon (in collaboration with EasyA), where developers successfully built advanced NFT minting UIs directly on AssetHub using these SDKs. We’re now extending our work to include research on PVM capabilities as part of our Q2 and Q3 deliverables—all of which are tracked and will be published for community review.
Please take a look at NFTMozaic Q1 Deliverables: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/nftmozaic-updates-and-next-steps/12351/4

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 6/10 can be raised. The team demonstrates concrete deliverables, including technical research reports, SDK adaptations for AssetHub, and successful hackathon tests. Re-evaluation: 8/10.

Score: 8/10

■Question 18 of 19

Are there publicly accessible references (e.g., code repositories, publications) or community feedback supporting the proposers’ credibility?

Numerous publications, blog posts, and press articles document the activities of Unique Network and NFTMozaic. NFTMozaic’s website outlines its strategic direction, partnerships, and goals. Community feedback is mixed, with positive remarks regarding Web3 Foundation funding but also criticism of the NFT market’s state and lack of transparency about the NFTMozaic team. Public code repositories or detailed technical documentation for NFTMozaic are not available, though Unique Network provides such resources.

Justification

Public perception and reporting affirm credibility, but the lack of technical transparency and direct traceability of NFTMozaic’s work lowers the evaluation.

Response:
The NFTMozaic web site NFTMozaic.com, especially its Education section/Wiki, and the Q1 table of deliverables (https://forum.polkadot.network/t/nftmozaic-updates-and-next-steps/12351/4) give a lot of insight into the work NFTMozaic has done to date, we encourage everyone to dive into that resource that was just recently released and it contains plenty of very interesting and useful data, analysis and other materials.
The organization itself does not write code, so not much to show in terms of its own code repositories - its job is to share, promote and tech best practices from across the ecosystem. For example, we have identified Kodadot’s indexer as the best one in the ecosystem for NFT dApps on NFTs and Uniques pallets, and have prepared an article on how to use it: https://wiki.nftmozaic.com/docs/how-they-work/code-examples/kodadot-indexer-integration.
Team Bios : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1psjGVwtGObHS9V4Fy2VkWDqIS4ZFDaAWWyzwZl6gZEY/edit?usp=sharing

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 5/10 can be raised to 8/10, as the team has provided comprehensive documentation of their work and team biographies.

Score: 8/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team behind NFTMozaic, through its close ties to Unique Network and its experienced leadership, possesses the necessary expertise in NFT technology, business development, and marketing. Unique Network’s past achievements demonstrate technical and organizational competence. However, NFTMozaic’s specific team structure remains opaque, with no publicly available information about the individuals involved or their specific experience.

Justification

Technical and organizational competence is established through Unique Network’s track record. However, the lack of transparency and unproven execution capacity of NFTMozaic itself reduces the evaluation.

Response:
Please take a look at NFTMozaic Q1 Deliverables: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/nftmozaic-updates-and-next-steps/12351/4

Re-evaluation:
The original score of 5/10 can be raised to 8/10, as the team has provided comprehensive documentation of their work and team biographies.

Score: 8/10

■Sources

■Result category 5

Total score: 32/40 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)