Thanks for the post @koday I am glad to see that the following clarifications are in place
I have come across some groups renaming themselves in order to bypass these criteria. I suggest having some sort of deep background check on newer applicants and using the distance between addresses as a signal to safeguard against such attempts. In many cases, newer applicants have some experience working with some of the larger/well known orgs in the past, the review team can include feedback from these entities to mitigate potential crossovers
As an active builder in the Community & Education space, i suggest we ask the applicants for specific metrics in order to judge if the content being created is actually having an impact. These could be in the form of
- videos or pictures such as @carlosjmelgar 's web3beach initiative
- views, subs and open rate for content,
- specific onboarding outcomes such as user testimonials which converted newbies into local ambassadors, practical problem solvers or became full-time web3 are the best sources of evaluation.
Educational initiatives which focus on how something works, or how to use an app, generally have a low quality output in terms of onboarding new users, since only those users who are already interested in the tech tend to dive deeper into these topics. Initiatives which focus on meta-narratives and mingle larger local or national contexts into the scope of crypto education tend to produce high-quality sticky users.
The other three rounds are very specific, however Web3 Community & Education combines two topics into a single category which results in a lower resolution signal for either category. For future rounds, I suggest separating the two into distinct rounds.