Yeah, no … after the last eighteen months it’s hard not to feel a little whiplash when someone says “let’s revive consumer-facing NFTs on Polkadot.” Q1 2025 NFT sales volumes are still down ~63 % year-over-year (-76 % in March alone). And broader market trackers show trading-volume attrition of 60 - 70 % since the 2022 peak. Against that backdrop, spending 110 000 DOT on a replicant of CodeCraft raises some questions.

Budget math:
20 × 5 000 DOT = 100 000 DOT in project grants plus 10 % “dev-rel & marketing curators.” But later each project also pays its own dev-rel + marketing exec another 5-10 %. Double skim?

MORE IMPORTANTLY: At 15-20 % mandatory marketing spend, teams could end up with < 3 500 DOT of real build capital—barely a modest hackathon prize.

KPI design
“Unique wallets” + “tx per user.” Both are easily botted and give no view on retention or revenue.

**Focus areas **
Art/collectibles explicitly excluded, yet that vertical still carries what’s left of mainstream mindshare.

Governance opacity
“Council with W3F, Parity, parachains, BD groups” elects curators, but no process, term length, or conflict-of-interest guardrails are specified.

Hard to defend transparency when curator wallets are also taking percentages of every grant.

Until the proposal bakes safeguards in, it reads less like “innovation” and more like a nostalgia tour for JPEG summers past.

I urge everyone to vote NO on this crab.

who are the team members behind this project? I didn't see any mention in the proposal doc.