Reposting this comment also here:
I would like to clarify one potential misunderstanding on the connection of the minimum direct commitment and the NF contribution:
- In the first version of the NF framework the minimum direct commitment and the NF contribution had indeed a strong connection as the NF would contribute the full amount once the minimum direct commitment was reached. As a consequence, it was requested (see here) that the NF contribution should not be more than 50% of minimum direct commitment.
- In the meantime the NF framework has evolved. In particular, it moved from a fixed ICP amount in the fund’s contribution to SNS swaps to a more dynamic model that scales with direct participation, picking up market signals.
- As a consequence, projects have to reache certain thresholds before the NF even starts to contribute. For more details, see the according forum post here.
- Hence, from an NF perspective the minimum direct commitment is not relevant anymore and thus from an NF perspective there is no issue with the 100 minimum commitment target for this particular SNS.
Having said that it would be still interesting to know why the dev team for this project chose such a broad range from 100 ICP to 1M ICP as the funding range. I will leave to the dev team to comment on that.