Basic Information

Application Status Summary

Score Overview and Reviewer Comments

→ Total Average Score: 11.93 / 16

• “The application has stated impact goals and local relevance, spanning regeneration, technical innovation, and community strategy. It is connected to Ethereum through tooling, project tracking, and national strategy. The design showcases both immediate and wider systemic effects via pilot and scale-up models but clear casual pathways are not present. For top marks, the scalability logic could be documented even further, detailing clear steps for external knowledge-transfer and region-wide application.”

• “The overall scope of the project is well defined and it has backing from the local government. Overall, and given the track record of the entity, it is a likely achievable scope. However, the concrete deliverables and sub-scopes could be better defined and explicit.”* | | 2️⃣ Local Co-Funding & Financial Sustainability | 2.67 | *- “Co-funding of $10k from credible local institutions shows strong legitimacy, but diversity is limited. Budget is transparent with categories, though operational costs seem lean. Sustainability plan relies on future pitches, which is a minor risk.”

• “The funding piece is strong, with $10K of signed commitments and a proven fundraising track record, plus plans for financial resilience and multi-source support. To reach the highest level, multi-year agreements and broader government/institutional arrangements would lock in ongoing viability. Pipeline expansion and more formalized pledges from diverse backers would boost sustainability.”*

• “The project has a proven history of securing funding and co-funding secured. The “flexible down-scaling” in case not enough funds are procured are understandable but impact the funding score negatively.” | | 3️⃣ Round Operations, Mechanisms & Impact Framework | 2.83 | *“Solid operational plan with minor gaps in timeline, mechanism clarity, or impact framework. Project selection is centralized. Impact measurement has quantitative goals, but verification methods (e.g.,”engagement analytics”) need strengthening.”

• “Operational transparency is good: selection, tracking, and reporting are well defined, with use of onchain and ecosystem assessment tools. There is a clear process for intake, milestone verification, and impact tracking—including qualitative storytelling and public reporting channels”

• “The team has a proven track record and government backing, which attests to their capabilities. Nonetheless, the exact operations of Kollektivo could have been made more clear in non-proposal language, i.e. in a descriptive fashion.”* | | 4️⃣ Team Capacity & Community Anchoring | 3.33 | *- “Team has solid experience in fundraising and project management, with clear roles. Community anchoring is evidenced through stakeholder partnerships, but deeper trust and past program success could be more demonstrated.”

• “The team merges local knowledge, technical expertise, and a history of effective coordination, backed up by government partners, biodiversity groups, and creative sector organizations. Governance and outreach structures foster cross-sector collaboration and trust building”

• “Team capacity is sufficiently proven to expect the delivery of impact.”* |

Public Summary Comments

Kolektivo Curaçao offers a promising program with strong local institutional support and clear Web3 alignment. The team is capable, but the program would benefit from more decentralized governance and robust impact verification.

Kolektivo could lift scores by obtaining multi-year written support from government and business, not just one-off grant rounds. Broadening its cross-sector replication model and opening more channels for regional adaptation and lessons sharing would move strategic alignment fully into top marks. Making recurring funding mechanisms and future operator pipelines explicit would protect against shocks and stressors

A government supported project with an overall achievable scope, which could benefit from more granular definitions of outcomes and outputs rather than overall (longterm!) impact.

Evaluation Summary

The Kolektivo Curaçao – Onchain Island Program is viewed as a strong, well-structured proposal backed by credible institutional partners, demonstrated fundraising capacity, and a capable team with clear operational roles. Reviewers found the program’s scope well aligned with Localism Fund goals, supported by $10K in confirmed co-funding and a solid operational plan that integrates on-chain tracking, milestone verification, and transparent reporting. While some aspects—such as impact verification methods, the specificity of deliverables, and the articulation of scaling pathways—would benefit from deeper definition, the overall design is coherent, feasible, and grounded in meaningful local partnerships, including government support. The team’s proven experience, combined with clear strategic intent and thoughtful use of Ethereum tooling, positions the program as a credible and high-potential initiative ready for implementation.