| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Grant Program Name | BUILDER INCUBATION FOR AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES IN EAST & WEST AFRICA |
| Application ID | APP-X6L4OUJS-R3O0XF |
| Application URL | https://app.karmahq.xyz/localism-fund/browse-applications/APP-X6L4OUJS-R3O0XF |
| Primary Contact | KarlaGod - Lead B<>rder/ess, Oliseh Genesis - Lead Code 3 Spaces |
| Organization | B<>rder/ess & Code 3 Spaces |
| Submission Date | November 5, 2025 1:29 AM (MST) |
| Round / Review Cycle | Round 01 – Cycle 1 |
| Total Score | 10.6 / 16 |
| Estimated Disbursement | $5,600 |
| Co-Funding Commit | $5,000 - CONFIRMED. |
Program SAFE → https://app.safe.global/home?safe=celo:0x08eec9137F67f0A772a7b48Ee388Fe5F91A6cA3f | | Application Status | Confirmed Approval | | Operator Contact | Monty - [email protected] / @montymerlin on Telegram |
| Evaluation Check | Status |
|---|---|
| Application Completed Sufficiently | ☑ Yes |
| Meets Program Criteria | ☑ Yes |
| Meets Round Criteria | ☑ Yes |
| Local Program Proceeding / Matching Funds Confirmed | ☑ Yes |
| Overall Readiness | Ready |
→ Total Average Score: 10.6 / 16
| Evaluation Category | Avg Score (out of 4) | Reviewer Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 1️⃣ Program Scope & Strategic Alignment | 2.67 | *“Given the connection to a university acceleration programme, the scope is achievable, likely to be executed, and a low probability of outright failure. In the external document that was shared, the staged programme design is much clearer and easier to follow. The goal for every project to onboard 100-1,000 remains unrealistic. It was unclear whether the 700 students are on top of builders or builders are chosen from that pool. Overall a worthy project with room for improvement in presentation structure.” |
”brings together two established hubs—Brderess in West Africa and Code 3 Spaces in East Africa—to incubate young Web3 builders and startups that focus on Ethereum-aligned public goods and regionally significant dApps. The goals and clear, mixing hands-on incubation, university partnership, open-source resources, and adoption-driven milestones. There is local grounding and strategies for impact reporting, the model for replicability and scaling outside initial partner universities could use more detail. Broader systemic learning pathways are mentioned but not as deeply mapped out. “
”The program's scope demonstrates a deep knowledge in developer incubator operations and execution. Empowering youth to develop public goods with a clear product-market-fit, go-to-market strategy, and impact evaluation framework is a compelling vision for driving systemic change by empowering builders across the African continent. While the onchain metrics and public goods orientation of the incubator do imply general societal benefits derived from incubated projects, the program’s scope would improve if it included partnerships with local community groups and NGOs to provide real-world inputs on builder priorities and opportunities. This third pillar, in addition to the program’s existing strengths in builder support and onchain impact measurement, would make the program a perfect instantiation of Localism Fund’s broader goals and criteria.”* | | 2️⃣ Local Co-Funding & Financial Sustainability | 2.5 | *“The co-funding is much clearer now. A clear “cap table” from the start would have significantly strengthened the proposal, but now it is clear what funds are available. Although the repurposing of funds by the applicants is understandable, it has the potential to raise questions. Nonetheless, the raised amount attests to the ability to raise and administer funds.”
”There are funding commitments: $6,000 raised, soft and hard commitments split between both hubs, and history of successful fundraising ($33,000 for a previous Web3 University Round). In-kind support and partnerships with local companies and municipal entities are included. The future pipeline is well described, but multi-year institutional agreements and deeper funding diversification, especially on the East African side, could improve”
”While the support and in-kind donations of multiple parties is a strong signal of community support, the application was unclear in terms of what resources are available for direct co-funding and which have already been dedicated to securing the physical hub of the residency. Further clarity is needed to confirm that there is at least $5k in co-funding that would flow directly into the program’s operations and matching funds. Given the extensive costs of running an incubator, the program could fall short of its primary community-centered mechanism (Adoption Prize Pool) if an insufficient amount of funds leads to 100% being spent on operations. This could present an existential challenge for the program to overcome and as such should be addressed early on before funding is allocated.”* | | 3️⃣ Round Operations, Mechanisms & Impact Framework | 2.83 | *“It is strengthened the application that links were added, showcasing their prior work, social profiles and prior outputs to the application. I am confident that the team can execute their round.”
”uses Karma GAP for milestone tracking, direct grants, open reporting dashboards, and milestone-based prizes for adoption metrics. Cohorts are managed transparently, builder support spans tech, marketing, and business development, and there’s a blend of sprints, mentorship, and demo days. Quarterly joint impact reports focus on on-chain adoption”
”The cadence and flow of the incubator is extremely well designed with clear phases for different types of builder support to ensure ideas are well evaluated before building takes place. As referenced previously, additional community input to pre-validate ideas would improve the overall strength of the program. Additionally, further work could improve the distribution mechanism for the builders in the program. For example, the Adoption Sprint Prize Pool mechanism could be further explained and operators could also include additional outcomes-based incentives for builders as well as a baseline stipend to support participants in the incubator with a peer reviewed bonus for those who contribute the most to their peers.”* | | 4️⃣ Team Capacity & Community Anchoring | 2.67 | *“The team is experienced and grounded in the network of ReFi and Web3 public goods.”
”The core teams have built physical hubs, run university clubs and hackathons, and have a record in onboarding developers and supporting Web3 startups. There’s division of roles between the regions, Track records from both leads and clear local partnerships make this team highly credible.”
”The team demonstrates core competence and expertise in the required domains for executing a high quality builder incubator. The combination of onchain grants / reporting and developer hub creation offers a strong foundation for achieving the program’s goals. Given the scope and depth of this type of incubator, the program could improve by signing on additional mentors and volunteers to ensure all builders in the program receive high quality guidance and the core operators are not over-committed and unable to support all builders equally.”* |
“Overall an interesting project, which stands out through its connection to a local university. The updates to the application significantly improved its performance. The incomplete application and its initial presentation led to an overall lower scoring of #3 and #4. Timely and complete submissions would improve this score.”
“Small gaps remain in the pipeline for long-term regional scale and the depth of institutional co-funding, mostly on sustaining non-pilot cohorts and cross-region replication. Working across both hubs does add complexity and it is not exactly clear what the value add is of two hubs or how exactly the two hubs would collaborate.”
“Overall, this is an incredibly strong program that could only be improved by increasing the accountability of builders in the program to the needs of local communities. By explicitly including the regenerative and community-led projects that builders could work alongside to develop new public goods, the program would be more deeply aligned with the Localism Fund’s explicit focus on localism. The program’s core strengths lie in the design of the incubator which is clear and professionally orchestrated. The program also offers an equally elegant and well designed impact measurement with clear goals related to adoption on Celo, catalyzed and accelerated by public goods built across the African continent.”
The Builder Incubation for African Universities program presents a strong and credible proposal grounded in two well-established hubs with a proven track record in youth builder support, onchain public goods, and university-based incubation. Reviewers found the program design clear, structured, and executable, with robust operational mechanisms, transparent impact reporting, and demonstrated fundraising capacity, contributing to a solid overall score of 10.6 / 16. Strengths include experienced regional teams, meaningful university partnerships, and a well-defined incubation flow supported by tools like Karma GAP. Key areas for improvement relate to clarifying long-term financial sustainability, strengthening the justification and collaboration model between the two hubs, and more explicitly integrating community-rooted partners to ensure builder priorities reflect real local needs. Overall, this is viewed as a high-potential, high-credibility initiative that would benefit from deeper community anchoring and clearer co-funding structure but stands out as a strong candidate for support.