- Participation rate : 44%
- Accepted - 42%, Rejected - 58%
Comments - Accept
- If Maker team can be introduced to Coniverse, it would be great as we want to discuss potential collaboration.
- They have a more concrete picture compared to the previous proposal. I look forward to Coniverse drawing in many users. The team needs to think more about how to contribute to Klaytn network specifically and not just blockchain community in general.
- It is better to do it again and again, because things often produce more unexpected discoveries in the implementation.
- It is a bit difficult to understand the budget plan on the Progress Report. A clearer and more concrete budget plan would be appreciated.
- It’s good to have Asset Management Service in Klaytn’s ecosystem.
Comments - Reject
- The output from the 1st stage was not enough, and the revised proposal for the 2nd stage is not proper to KIR.
- Crypto market is extremely high risky, which is not suitable for university student. In addition, there might be some potential risk from regulators.
- The main content of the community is information related to coin investment by college students, and I am concerned about public opinion.
- We don’t see a clear value of this project. Vote for stop funding or cut the budget by 90%.
Comments - Abstention
- We cannot see how the service can be used by customers. It is not clear how cryptocurrency investors communicate their portfolio with other users. They also need to include their goal in a quantitative way.