CCN Grant Review Process
✍🏼

CCN Grant Review Process

The Climate Coordination Network (CCN) is a team of 6 people from different countries who share a mission to help fund and support early stage climate projects.

The team has helped manage multiple Gitcoin climate rounds — and also many Web3 community rounds — and we are committed to the newly decentralized Climate Solutions Program.

This document outlines our Grant Review Process, a crucial step to ensuring that the funds we allocate are used effectively and contribute to addressing climate change. Our reviews are conducted by an experienced team of round operators from multiple regions who are committed to supporting impactful projects.

Reviewing Method, New for #GG21

The Climate Coordination Team is moving towards increasingly utilizing impact metrics and measurement tools to help validate impact claims and to help grantees showcase real-world climate impact.

In order to provide more funds to impactful climate projects, the CCN team is trying something new for GG21. Here are the key changes:

  • Eligibility Criteria: Please read the updated GG21 Eligibility Criteria carefully. Note that applicants who participated in GG20 must have at least 2 milestones and updates in their GG20 KarmaGap profile.
  • Round Limit: The Climate Solutions round will be limited to 70 grantees maximum as determined by a ranking of project review scores
  • Project Reviews: Reviewers will score projects based on their application, Karma GAP milestones and updates, impact metrics and other information.
  • Application Period: Applications received before Aug. 4th, 23:59 UTC are guaranteed a review before the round. Applications received after Aug. 4th, 23:59 UTC will lose .5 points off their average review score. The last day to apply is Monday, Aug. 5th — no exceptions will be made.

GG21 REVIEW PROCESS: 2 GATES

Projects will be reviewed following a more detailed and specific review system compared to previous rounds. The scale used will go from 1 to 5. Each project will be reviewed by 2 reviewers. Note that there are two gates. Each project must clear the 6 questions of the first gate in order to be eligible for a ranking. These questions reflect the minimum round eligibility criteria. Any project not clearing the first gate will be automatically rejected from the round.

Once the projects clear the first gate, then they will be given scores for each of the 7 project evaluation questions in the second gate.  These scores will be averaged and then all projects will be ranked according to their average scores.

Only the top 70 projects of the ranked scores will be accepted in the GG21 Climate Solutions round. Projects receiving a ranking of 60-80 will receive a third reviewer before the top 70 project list is published and finalized.

FIRST GATE, CORE ELIGIBILITY (only 1-no or  5-yes)

Does the project meet the following criteria? If ANY answer to the following six questions is YES, then all the other metrics will be marked as 1 and the review will result in the minimum score of 8. This will result in the project being disqualified from the round.

It is the project’s responsibility to ensure that their application clearly shows how their project meets these core eligibility questions. If all answers are positive, this question will receive a 5 and reviewers will continue to the second set of project evaluation questions and be included in the project ranking.

  • Is project is less than least 3 month old?
  • Does the project exhibit evidence of being a scam?
  • Is the project primarily a token launch or NFT project to raise money for a liquidity pool (project must provide evidence through impact tools that there is clear evidence of action and climate impact)?
  • Does the owner have more than one project in the round (both projects will be rejected)?
  • Does the project fail to show a clear and primary focus on being a climate solution?
  • Is the project outside of the realm of viability (fails to prove it’s viable)?
  • Does the project have a Karma GAP profile with a minimum 2 Karma GAP milestones and updates?

SECOND GATE, PROJECT EVALUATION, 7 QUESTIONS (from 1 to 5 for each eligibility)

First 2 on Updates, Second 2 for Impact, Other 3 for project grading

Question 1. Project Update (from 1 to 5)

  • Did the project provide a meaningful, high-quality update since GG20?

Question 2. Karma Milestones and Updates (from 1 to 5)

  • Did the project provide a minimum of 2 milestones and meaningful updates via KarmaGAP since GG20? Can include challenges and pivots.

Question 3. Impact over the past 12 months (from 1 to 5)

  • Has funding this project resulted in measurable impact as described in the Impact Summary over the past 12 months?

Question 4. Climate Impact (from 1 to 5)

  • What is the project's impact today plus the potential to deliver climate impact as evidenced by metrics?

Question 5. Scalability (from 1 to 5)

  • Assess the project's ability to scale its impact over time globally.

Question 6. Team Assessment (from 1 to 5)

  • Assess the team's background, climate expertise, and blockchain experience.

Question 7. Innovation and Uniqueness (from 1 to 5)

  • Evaluate the originality of the project.

Reviewer Independence

The CCN team is composed of people who are committed to taking action to address our global climate crisis; therefore, many of us have our own projects and grant proposals. We believe not only in our individual initiatives, but also in the urgent need to build, support and scale climate projects in every corner of the world. This is why we are also involved in the Climate Solutions Program, and in the interest of transparency, we would like to clearly state that:

  • Reviewers do not review their own grant proposals to maintain objectivity and prevent conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers do not evaluate grants they have a personal connection with to ensure impartiality.

Appeals Process & Constructive Feedback

Our grantee review process aims to maintain transparency, fairness, and accountability while ensuring that our funds are allocated to projects that have the potential to make a meaningful climate impact.

We appreciate the dedication of our reviewers in this important endeavour.

Please remember that it is the applicant’s responsibility to clearly communicate how their project meets the core eligibility criteria. Please provide clear and concise information to make this easy for us to assess or you risk being disqualified from the round and will have to try again in the future.

We will publish the project rankings for all projects. We will have a way for grantees to request feedback so you can improve your grant application for future rounds.

There will not be a direct appeal process this round.