support this, we need people to just produce and produce apps. Will HF look for other similiar grants who can develop other apps in paralell?
3 Likes
The idea here is that Thrive would manage the grant program on behalf of HF with HF and other ecosystem stakeholders providing oversight mainly for strategic direction and to hold them accountable to the community.
HF and the DAO will also have other funds available beyond the grant program to fund ecosystem grown and, frankly, whatever ends up being important it the future per the general categories outlined in ZenIP-42407.
But I agree with you, we just need to start building…and then building a lot more!
2 Likes
Proposal is live at: https://snapshot.box/#/s:horizenfoundationnontechnical.eth/proposal/0xd4a7470685dd0d9b5a9cb7bfd0502627b22b5d388292918f637bb38c7f73e1f8
4 Likes
I highly encourage the community to get out and vote
3 Likes
I support this Proposal, the vision is very clear…
The plan on what Horizen is expecting from developers that will build on its tech is well detailed, also I like the way the program is being splited across 5 years, it gives the program relevance and longevity
I have known Thrive for in the space for a while now, they got a good reputation.
3 Likes
1. Thrive’s 20% Service Fee
A 20% fee feels quite steep, especially compared to similar programs in the ecosystem, where fees typically fall in the 10–15% range. A side-by-side comparison of alternative providers would help justify this rate.
Since we’re launching on Base, we should consider using Coinbase-verified accounts as a lightweight KYC mechanism. This could reduce compliance costs and potentially allow for a lower overhead model.
2. Rigid Project Category Allocations
The fixed target splits—40% DeFi, 30% AI, 20% Gaming, 10% Governance—raise concerns:
- Inflexibility: Strong projects outside predefined categories may go unfunded, while weaker ones could be selected just to fill quotas.
- Gaming the system: Teams may misclassify projects to fit into better-funded buckets.
- No review mechanism: There’s no mention of reassessing these splits based on results or ecosystem needs.
These allocations should be treated as guidelines, with a wildcard bucket for high-potential projects and quarterly reassessments to stay aligned with evolving priorities.
3. Lack of Transparency in Project Selection
The proposal provides minimal detail on how projects will be selected. Key questions remain:
- Is the process open to the public, or invite-only?
- What are the selection criteria and scoring models?
- How is bias or insider favoritism prevented?
- What role does the Horizen community play?
Without transparency and community oversight, there’s a risk this becomes a closed-loop program favoring Thrive’s existing network rather than fostering broad, merit-based participation.
4. Risk of Project Underperformance or Fund Misuse
The milestone funding structure is a good start, but there’s no clear accountability model for underperforming or non-delivering projects:
- Are there clawbacks or recovery options for unspent or misused funds?
- Will there be public reporting of project status and outcomes?
- What happens if teams fail to meet KPIs or vanish after partial disbursement?
We’ve seen ecosystems in the past suffer from grants enriching teams without driving real adoption. Stronger enforcement and visibility will help avoid repeating that.
1 Like
I appreciate I am late to the party (I need to look up from my code more often), my vote has been cast.
I’m looking forward to submitting my application. 
1 Like
Better late than never! I’ll leave to Thrive answer about the selection process, but my belief is that everything is transparent.
A couple of points to add:
-
The management fee at this price of $ZEN ends up equiv to about ~2-4 FTE (full time worker equivalents) to manage our most important ecosystem program. Just speaking from the Horizen Labs pov, we’d end up hiring and spending much more than that to set up a proper grant program, from tools we’d have to subscribe to our build, and people we’d have to allocate over time.
-
Thrive is bringin more than just workers to the table, they have product, processes, expertise, and a huge network of devs to bring to Horizen.
-
The target allocations by category are initial targets based on Thrive working with us, the Foundation, and others to figure out what makes sense to be consistent with what we think a privacy platform on Base would need. These are totally configurable, not fixed.
-
There’s strong accountability with Thrive in that (a) we have one year options to renew with them if we’re happy (or conversely, part ways if we’re not), and (b) Thrive’s entire model is to implement a performance-based program where funds only get released to recipients upon achieving measurable milestones. This is rare in crypto! That said, keep in mind that 90%+ of projects/startups fail, no matter who’s managing the allocations, so don’t expect every grant recipient to be successful.
My two zennies, but Thrive can way in with a lot more detail.
1 Like
Appreciate the response - and it all makes sense!
Especially the failure rate, which is understandable.
I want to see some Horizen specific dapps, that dont exist on other chains. Give us something we haven’t seen before 
2 Likes
haha yes! Let’s get some Horizen-specific apps that people just love and you can’t find anywhere else
2 Likes
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, and thanks @finpunk for jumping in. Here’s some additional context:
-
Service Fee:
Thrive’s fee structure is pretty standard. For reference, Layer3 and similar protocols have the same fee. What makes us stand out is that our fee covers everything end-to-end: protocol usage, ecosystem support, best practices, external reviewer (Guardian) compensation, integrations, white-labeling, and more. Thrive is a fully managed, performance-driven growth engine for the Horizen ecosystem. -
Project Category Allocations:
You’re spot on that the category allocations should be guidelines, not hard quotas. The Horizen board (outlined in the proposal) will have the ability to adjust allocations quarterly, or sooner if needed, based on project flow and ecosystem priorities. Great instinct on this, and we’re fully aligned on keeping flexibility. -
Selection Process:
All projects are evaluated and diligenced by a decentralized network of independent reviewers (Guardians) with proven track records. The Horizen board retains final authority to veto any recommendation based on community feedback and Horizen’s evolving needs and priorities. Importantly: even after approval, projects are only paid when they deliver real, measurable performance. In the Thrive model favorites don’t win; value creators do. -
Accountability / Underperformance:
No performance delivery = no payment. That’s the core safeguard. Funds are released in stages, tied to verified outcomes. If a team underperforms or disappears, the funds stay in the treasury. Thrive provides weekly reporting to the board and quarterly reporting to the community, ensuring full transparency at every step.
Big picture: Thrive’s entire model is built for capital efficiency, performance, and accountability. We’re here to help Horizen fund real builders, drive measurable onchain growth, and set a new standard for ecosystem impact.
2 Likes
Challenge accepted! 
1 Like
Great answers thanks for taking the time to respond!
3 Likes
Grants program should be launched publicly August 13th. Right now team is working on putting toghether the details, forms, website, etc
1 Like
This is such a big milestone for the project, I’m really excited to see the program kick off
1 Like