<aside>
💯 This rubric shows publicly how all applications received from the UAGP form are evaluated. UAGP team will use these criteria to provide a score to each application received or, in the event, discard it immediately if it violates one or more of the conditions mentioned. Still, assessments are conducted on a relative basis with limited available funds.
</aside>
Idea Proposed
| Rate |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
| Fitting to Uniswap |
Not suitable |
Poor-fitting |
Appropriate |
Excellently suited |
| Development Stack |
No info about tools |
|
|
|
| No info about contracts |
One mentioned resource |
Enough info about workflow |
Excellent workflow |
|
| Security Audit |
Not planned |
Mentioned without details |
Details and info featured |
Excellent plan |
| Demo |
Not provided |
Non-exhaustive demo |
- Clear demo provided |
|
- No prototype | Beta WIP |
| Open-source | No public code | Partial things open-source | Repository open-source | Experienced team on open-source |
| Project Quality/Novelty | Entirely Unoriginal & low quality | Small aspects of originality & quality | Many original concepts, well executed | Entirely original idea, excellent quality |
Ecosystem Impact
| Rate |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
| Benefits brought in |
Non-real benefits |
At least one |
Tangible benefits |
Detailed benefits with |
| metrics provided |
|
|
|
|
| Originality |
Already present such ideas |
- Not a novelty |
|
|
- Interesting idea | Proposed idea
is a novel | Excellent originality |
| Market Distribution | No target identified | - Target identified
- No detailed plan | Good plan including
a few details | Excellent reach plan |
Deliverables / Milestones
| Rate |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
| Traceability |
No tracking available |
Fairly trackable |
Trackable |
Easy and |
| updated tracking |
|
|
|
|
| Monitoring Supervisor |
No supervisor indicated |
Only mentioned |
Further details given |
Clear on who and |
| how will monitor |
|
|
|
|
| Clearness |
Not clear at all |
Shaded areas |
Quite clear |
Perfectly clear |
| Feasibility |
Unclear |
Poorly achievable |
Average attainable |
Strongly achievable |
Miscellaneous
| Rate |
0 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
| Team |
Missing concrete info |
Undefined roles |
- Clear roles |
|
- Good team | Excellent team
for delivering |
| Funds Reasonability | Unreasonable
To re-adapt | Poor rationale | - Explained reasons
- Reasonable Enough | Fund request
perfectly matches |
| Uniswap Arbitrum Relationship | No relationship at all | Poorly involved | Active in 1 | Active in both |
Conduct of the Applicant
| Decision |
Reason (at least one of the followings if applicable) |
| Rate -2 |
1) Applicant not responsive to the reachouts |
- -- |
| Rate -1 | 1) Guidelines not followed by the applicant
- -- |
| Instant Rejection | 1) Grant request does not fit into the categories available for this program
- A negative evaluation of the team or the person who proposed the idea has been verified
- Spam Application |
| Grant Removal | 1) Violation of the Code of Conduct
- -- |