I’ve got a real question for the DFINITY Grant Committee and maybe the wider community too — if the grant team doesn’t disclose why a project is rejected, how are devs supposed to improve or align with what the foundation actually wants?
Some of us spend weeks — even months — building, polishing, and shaping projects we genuinely believe can contribute to the ecosystem. Then a single automated rejection lands with zero context. That silence hits hard. Not just because of ego, but because time, energy, and hope are real investments too.If the goal is to grow the Internet Computer ecosystem, shouldn’t transparency be part of that growth? Even a one-line summary like “not enough technical depth” or “needs clearer market validation” would be miles more constructive than silence.I’m not asking for hand-holding — I’m asking for fairness. Because right now, it feels like developers are pitching into a void, and the only people who get heard are the ones who already know the right doors to knock on.Would love to hear from others who’ve gone through this — did you ever get any actionable feedback, or is it just guesswork every time?
The grants program was always a way to enrich insiders and never to grow the community. Same as ICVC, they won’t even bother sending feedback half the time.
That’s exactly what worries me, — the silence between rejection and clarity.
Developers pour weeks or months into prototypes believing the process rewards innovation, not connection. When you put in that much time, a simple “why” can make the difference between improving and giving up. If you get even a small piece of feedback, at least you know your project was reviewed by real humans — not just filtered out by some automated system or checklist.
Transparency doesn’t cost anything, but it buys trust.Maybe it’s time to consider a community review model or peer-based feedback round. That would help ensure every builder, even small teams, feels seen and guided — not just silently dismissed.
If they say why, than you get 10x less builders. Its better to keep builders hoping for cash price than directly saying that no grants is given to some category apps.
I kinda get what you mean, but if feedback really scares builders off, then maybe we’re not building the right kind of ecosystem. Most of us would rather know why something didn’t pass — even a short note helps you refine and come back better. When it’s just silence, it starts to feel like no one’s actually reviewing, just auto-filtering. And that’s worse than a rejection tbh.
The community could give general feedback on why. Most organizations never give reasons ‘why’.. just ‘rejected’. This is true for most grant programs / VC / incubators and more..
They receive hundreds or thousands of application
Providing thoughtful, individualized feedback would require significant time from senior partners
The math simply doesn’t work when you’re rejecting 95-99% of applicants
Detailed feedback could be used as evidence in discrimination lawsuits
Hi! I do not make decisions about grants, but I am responsible for operations of the grants program, and I will say that the main reason that we have not historically offered reasons is because – without exception – when we did offer reasons, the applicant always argued with us about it. They got even more angry. They got defensive. Sometimes they started bad-mouthing our decision on forums, claiming we were out of touch, etc. It was often very, very bad. We tried extensive explanations. We tried simple explanations. It ALWAYS resulted in the applicant arguing with us about the decision (and then getting even more angry when we decided that further conversation was not beneficial and we went silent).
I am not saying that you would have done this. Clearly you didn’t, as you didn’t get any explanation.
Do you have any ideas for how we can offer feedback and somehow avoid this type of angry “You’re wrong” backlash that we get? Honestly, people don’t argue when they don’t know the reason.
I think a reply or reason should always be given and then ends it there.
No communication is indeed hard for teams as it will raise more questions and bad thoughts.
Totally understand what was shared — it makes sense that offering detailed feedback in the past led to heated back-and-forths and took a toll on the team.
But maybe the solution isn’t removing feedback altogether, just simplifying it. For example, use general rejection codes or categories like:
“Not aligned with ecosystem priorities”
“Needs stronger technical foundation”
“Market validation unclear”
That keeps communication minimal, professional, and non-argumentative — while still helping applicants reflect and improve. Builders don’t need essays, just direction. The community can handle rejection — it’s the silence that drains motivation
In the real world when you get rejected for Job or online dating, no reason are ever given. The rejectee is usually in the mindset to argue indefinitely.
Here’s the thing: a grant isn’t a right-swipe or a job ATS pass. It’s funding people who are trying to build something for a shared ecosystem. Builders pour weeks or months into prototypes, docs, and demos. That’s not a casual application you ghost and move on from — that’s work, time, and sometimes real money.
Silence doesn’t toughen anyone up; it just wastes effort and breeds cynicism. A one-line category of rejection (“needs clearer market fit”, “technical scope unclear”, “not aligned with ecosystem goals”) doesn’t invite drama — it gives direction. Direction turns rejection into iteration. Silence turns it into burnout.
If you want to defend opacity, fine — but don’t act like this is the same as a Tinder swipe or a faceless job portal. It’s not. Builders deserve better than a shrug.
Do job or grant applications give you reason why you were rejected? For me they never have. It is pretty standard practice in multiple industries not to give detailed explanations upon rejection
You all make fair points — and honestly, I understand why DFINITY might have stopped providing feedback if it kept turning into heated debates. But I also think there’s a middle ground that respects both sides.
It doesn’t have to be personal or argumentative — just structured. A short “rejection framework,” for example:
Meets ecosystem goals
Needs clearer market validation
Not technically feasible under current scope
Something like that would give builders context without sparking debates.
At least then we’d know our work was actually reviewed by humans, not filtered out by automation or vague metrics.
A lot of us pour months of effort into these projects — feedback, even minimal, turns rejection into direction. That’s what keeps a community healthy, transparent, and confident in the system it’s building on.
I reviewed the full list of grantees. ~90-95% of grant-funded projects to date have failed or been abandoned. Millions of dollars have been wasted and there aren’t very many examples of “money well spent”. Many of these projects were doomed to failure/abandonment from the start and (over)funded regardless.
It’s surprising to read a response like this from someone in management. Despite the grant team’s poor track record, your strategy is to red stamp developers without providing feedback because “people don’t argue when they don’t know the reason”. The solipsism in this statement is palpable. “Developers are at fault and the ecosystem should suffer so my feelings don’t get hurt.“
Your team hasn’t developed a successful model to evaluate grant proposals against and you’ve wasted millions on funding dysfunctional trivialities and buzzword slop nonsense projects…the “reasons” here are important and at a bare minimum you should be providing them to the very developers who justify your team’s positions and salaries and reflecting on whatever the “pushback” you do get.
They have allocated tens of millions of dollars to various scam projects through the NF while there is less than $500,000 in USD liquidity across the DEXs.
Didn’t expect this post to spark such a wide conversation, but it’s clear that many builders have carried similar frustrations quietly for a while. Seeing others open up about their experiences — the effort, the silence, and the lessons — shows how much passion and resilience truly exist in this community.
This was never about calling anyone out. It’s about recognizing that communication and transparency matter, especially in an ecosystem that thrives on innovation and collaboration. Even a brief response or general feedback can go a long way — at least it shows that a real human reviewed your work. Silence, especially with no reply emails, only leaves room for confusion and discouragement.
At the end of the day, transparency doesn’t weaken an ecosystem — it strengthens loyalty and trust. Grateful to everyone who contributed to this discussion, whether in agreement or not. The passion alone proves that builders care deeply about ICP’s future.
Meets ecosystem goals
Needs clearer market validation
Not technically feasible under current scope
