Thanks for taking the time to clarify and respond — I appreciate the additional context. I watched your full presentation, and I do want to say that you are a good presenter. 
I understand that the presentation and marketing campaign were part of a grants process, and I accept that the campaign was not intended to reflect the full state of your production infrastructure. 
That said, my feedback is based partly on the same marketing data you referenced, as well as what was publicly visible at the time: the campaign execution, several repositories, and multiple live pages.
I don’t know Juno, I don’t know Davide, and I didn’t approach this through the lens of grant compliance — only through observed outcomes. Juno is some plug 'n play CMS hat generates backend code is my understanding.
From that perspective, I arrived at different conclusions.
When people (including myself) hear about a new AI startup, the natural reaction is to do due diligence. Seeing several frontends — many of them broken — creates poor optics. Regardless of scope or intent, this is the impression it leaves externally.
After all, you and your team in-between yourself have participated in more than 10 hackathons -
you should be more experienced then having to use Juno for user authentication.
The core issue for me isn’t whether milestones were technically met, but whether the campaign meaningfully benefited Dfinity and its stakeholders. A paid campaign that drives users into flows where they cannot meaningfully progress — due to missing or broken functionality — creates a perception problem, particularly when traffic appears concentrated around the team’s own geography.
Especially when the team does not seem committed to their cause.
When I read “it makes sense for Dfinity,” I struggle to reconcile that statement with what the data appears to show. From the outside, it’s difficult to see this as a clear win for the ecosystem or for those ultimately funding these initiatives. 
I want to be explicit about one thing: I am not accusing you or your team of fraud. If anything, I suspect there may be broader structural issues in how grants, marketing obligations, and incentives are designed — situations where teams are encouraged to run campaigns before products are truly ready, or where promised support does not fully materialize.
This is why some observers raise questions. For example:
-
If a professional PR or marketing campaign was part of winning a hackathon 14 months ago, people naturally wonder why the visual quality and UX appear inconsistent. You even partnered with a professional photographer and yet it looks like the images and graphics was created in a hurry using paint.
-
If technical mentorship was provided, it becomes difficult for outsiders to reconcile that with core functionality — such as image uploads — still not working after a long development timeline.
These aren’t accusations; they are questions driven by visible outcomes.
So when I ask whether I’m wrong — I genuinely think we may both be right. You are right about the scope and constraints of the grant. I may also be right about how this looks from the outside.
My original question was simple: why present this now, in this state, if the project is still evolving so significantly?
You cite a partnership with a wedding photographer in Berlin and describe a vision around ownership transfer using AI and blockchain. It’s an interesting space — but after spending significant time on due diligence, I still struggled to see a clear path toward profitability or execution consistency, which makes the public push harder to understand.
From the outside, the combination of a long build timeline, a public marketing campaign, and visible gaps in basic functionality creates a perception problem — one that can look like minimal interest is execution rather than genuine momentum, regardless of the internal reality.
Thanks again for engaging openly. I’m not hostile, and I would rather support your project than ignore it. I’m simply explaining why, from an external point of view, it has not yet come across as something clearly positioned to deliver on its promises. (Besides prize money there have been several grants as per my understanding.)
I also sense that perhaps there is some frustration from the team as well:
I am sure you have spent a lot of time on this, but if this is an incubated / accelerated project with funding, mentors and a web 3 marketing burau behind it, official partnerships, etc
I expected more, and that is why people are wondering, how much money went into this. Not just your grants, stipendiums and prize money, but also to people external to Futura who are paid by the community (Dfinity) to accelerate, market, and mentor Futura.
We are after all a community, we should support each other, not take advantage or go after each other!
So if you have some grievances and insights as well, which I suspect you do (?), you are most welcome to share here, and that will be the ultimate value that Futura (for now) can provide this community, Dfinity and its stakeholders.
What is really going on here?
. Also to Tiago for all the supports.
