ByteBell Grant application

[deusmachinea]

Project Abstract

Please replace these instructions with a brief description of your project summarising key points (1-2 paragraphs).

If your application is a follow-up to a previous grant, please mention which one in the first line of the abstract and include a link to previous pull requests if applicable.

Grant level

• Level 1: Up to $10,000, 2 approvals
• [ x] Level 2: Up to $30,000, 3 approvals
• Level 3: Unlimited, 5 approvals (for >$100k: Web3 Foundation Council approval)

Application Checklist

• The application template has been copied and aptly renamed (project_name.md).
• [ x] I have read the application guidelines.
• [x ] Payment details have been provided (Polkadot AssetHub (USDC & DOT) address in the application and bank details via email, if applicable).
• I understand that an agreed upon percentage of each milestone will be paid in vested DOT, to the Polkadot address listed in the application.
• I am aware that, in order to receive a grant, I (and the entity I represent) have to successfully complete a KYC/KYB check.
• [x ] The software delivered for this grant will be released under an open-source license specified in the application.
• [x ] The initial PR contains only one commit (squash and force-push if needed).
• [ x] The grant will only be announced once the first milestone has been accepted (see the announcement guidelines).
• I prefer the discussion of this application to take place in a private Element/Matrix channel. My username is: @deus_machinea:matrix.org (change the homeserver if you use a different one)

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[deusmachinea]

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

[diogo-w3f]

@deusmachinea thanks for applying. Could you please change your application to comply with our template? Here are the changes needed:

• Missing Payment entry (USDC AssetHub address + currency) in Payment Details; template calls for both DOT and USDC lines.
• Roadmap Overview uses DAI instead of USD for Total Costs; template insists on USD amounts.
  DOT % currently 0%; grants require at least 50% of the request in DOT.
• Each milestone table replaces mandatory deliverable 0d. Docker with Article; needs to follow the template (article is optional elsewhere).
• Contact block lacks the required Website field.
• Legal Structure section omits Registered Legal Entity.
• Minor format issue: Average Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) bullet is missing the closing bold marker **.

Furthermore, can you take a read at our new guidelines and help us to outline how your application fits on it? How your application can help to increase the usage of DOT token?

[deusmachinea]

Updated the bytebell.md with all the required changes.

[diogo-w3f]

@deusmachinea thanks for the improvements. The application still with some problems to comply with our template. Here are the changes needed.

• Project Details: Include the mandatory “What your project is not or will not provide” bullet list.
• Milestone costs: Keep every milestone amount in USD (template requirement) and ensure the totals reconcile with the USD split in the overview.
• Default deliverables: 0d. Docker can’t defer to future work; provide actual Docker artifacts or instructions that reviewers can run the proposed environment. We're gonna need to evaluate the project when you deliver. How we're gonna run it?
• Documentation: Milestone tables should clearly show how to access cloud instances in addition to Docker, but the template still expects runnable container or reproduction steps.
• Formatting cleanup: Remove duplicate 0e. Article rows in Milestone 3. You also have many deliverables without numbers, or with duplicate numbers in the same milestone. Please proper enumerate them.

[semuelle]

pinging @deusmachinea

[deusmachinea]

Let me submit the edited application by tomorrow.
Thansk a lot. @semuelle @diogo-w3f

[keeganquigley]

Hi @deusmachinea thanks for all your time + efforts in applying for the W3F grant program. Unfortunately, the proposal was unable to garner enough approvals from the committee to be accepted. This is partly because there are already a few all-in-one toolkits being developed for substrate, and a few external teams handling documentation, so it would be best to collaborate with them when it comes to aggregating docs.

Thanks again and I will close this now. We wish you the best of luck in securing funding for the project.