MtopSwap Funding Proposal for $75,000

It appears that strong community participation that is founded via a snapshot can overthrow a weak voting situation on behalf of the unknown 3-person grant committee. Pleas show your utmost support to this proposal here:


I really do hope the Harmony team reconsider their decision as right now it really is a slap in the face for all the projects that are continuing to sticking through it. Even more of a slap in the face for those projects that have PoC and a strong community backing, which means they really want this type of projects on this chain!


This seriously got rejected? This has by far been the most active and positive community around the harmony ecoystem. The person in charge of revewing the grant can’t even speak proper English with the most vague and shady response I’ve ever seen:

We’ve found in our Due Diligence.

We hope this makes sense. Thank you for choosing Harmony.
Good luck

What does this even say? How can you ignore the community so readily after funding so many random DAOs that just got grants left and right.



No need to throw insults around. With that said it is baffling that this has not been approved. I give my full support to this project.


First, thank you so much for your support for the grant application and project as a whole. Although we have had numerous pushbacks along the way we are continuing to develop and to build both our community and THE community within the Harmony blockchain. We are proud to have so much interaction and discussion of our project and hope that this inspires more activity on the talk forum. Community voice and feedback is a tremendous force in the digital social realm!

That being said, please don’t attack the people handling our grant. I am sure that they are doing their best with the instruction and resources at their disposal. Also, whether English is their first language is not a matter up for consideration, this is DeFi and all people are welcome. We’re all here to prompt change, and it is up to each of us to shape the future through our voices and activism. It’s so much easier to be kind and constructive friends :slight_smile:


This is unacceptable

Who are the 3 voters? Where is Harmony’s “radical transparency”?


I believe MTOP is a strong community with their heart in the right place. It’s clear that they’ve been very cooperative to make this proposal work. I hope this doesn’t close the door on them completely and they can come back after tweaking what is needed and eventually get funded.

They’re good people with great ambition. I encourage continued talks between them and the grant group to hopefully get something done!


This is the god zalyasu and I support this message ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ


I’d love to have a little respect on your comments.
If you think that reviewing a tech Grant requires “proper” English (define proper for us please so we could see if it’s necessary for doing so) it’s because you are only paying attention to the language instead of what a project really requires.
Also You also affirm without even knowing my vote or my opinion about it.
Also, I’m part of the community (base in facts as people knows me). Wrong again saying I don’t pay attention to them. All the moves that I make to build processes around the grants are exactly for the community.

I’m asking for respect


Community need respect ans transparency too!

You are not a serious person @jbeltran and you risk harming harmony by continuing as you are doing I hope harmony will realise your bad work and lost lot of project on Harmony!

You refuse projects without justification and are ashamed to say why? Don’t be shy @jbeltran


The talk has no repercussion but someone should make a tweet about the way you act and the disrespect you have towards the harmony community so that everyone realizes that you are not an honest and serious person @jbeltran . You only bring negative things to harmony and the community doesn’t need that!


I think you should hold your horses. The way you speak, doesn’t help the case you seemingly want to support. Look at the way @Pioneer handles this situation — far more professional, which can generate positive impact you desire. @jbeltran has asked for respect and you went the other direction, not sure why.

I also believe you complete misconstrue the role @jbeltran plays. He is the one facilitating grants between projects and Harmony core team. He is not part of Harmony core team himself and he even expressed here that you don’t know his personal view in this particular case. It’s almost as you are bashing the only person who is on your side so to speak.

For what is worth, I can personally attest, @jbeltran does a lot of great work to support the projects he is assigned to in professional way, while staying impartial.


Please no toxicity towards harmony and their team, they technacly dont owe us anything, might be a shame we have to do so much for a grant but if thats the process to get a huge amount of money for our project then let it be, we will get through it!
Hope this will be a new standard for every project as it would make our ecosystem better and attract serious projects (maybe raising floor of grant but making it way harder to get?)

Remember, our goal is to bring the harmony ecosystem and community together so don’t scare people away by being toxic!


Is this a new type of (3, 3)?


I would love to see MTOPs subscription model.
The idea with the wallet detections seem nice


100% agree
that respect should be kept, however to expand on your point

If you think that reviewing a tech Grant requires “proper” English (define proper for us please so we could see if it’s necessary for doing so) it’s because you are only paying attention to the language instead of what a project really requires.

can you kindly share “what a project really requires” and where this project fell short? this would really change this from a blanket statement to something insightful



I believe there will be a free version and a monthly paid service with additional tools that can be acquired by purchasing the monthly NFT. I’ll drop the link to their MTOP discord here. They hold a lot of AMAs if it’s something you would like to access more information.


When I said “what a project requires” I meant that knowing more or less English it’s not needed for making a decision. We all know that, although I understand English without any problem at all, reviewing a project requires in my opinion:
analytical capacity to: analyze the real budget of the project, analyze a business plan to know if the project can survive on its own, analyze its technological viability, and analyze if it supports the development of the network,… And many other personal variables that I take the liberty of not having to detail them here, now, since it is neither the place nor the place to judge me.
It is an open community so instead of focusing the comments on criticizing the decisions of the harmony team, from my point of view, efforts should be focused on highlighting the project’s strengths and also knowing how to express the weak points that should be reinforced.
That said, I am not the only voter, nor has this thread been very successful towards me, without knowing my personal opinion on the matter.
I invite the community to continue to comment on the project.



Shouldn’t attention be paid towards the project’s weaknesses though. It’s the weaknesses that failed to convince the committee to vote a strong yes. The project’s strengths managed to obtain soft yeses and a soft no.

Knowing where it fell short in terms of the committee’s
“analysis of the real budget of the project, analysis of the business plan to know if the project can survive on its own, analysis of its technological viability” is the only way any project can improve their application bid. Why isn’t any concrete feedback being given?


Note. “personal variables that I take the liberty of not having to detail them here” is slightly concerning, this indicates it’s highly subjective. The process would be more neutral on a majority decision Vs a unanimous strong yes decision (if votes continue to be conducted by only 3 people - all it takes is one person to wake up on the wrong side of the bed).


Respect is indeed mandatory, that’s why I flagged that comment

But “radical transparency” is also mandatory, per Harmony’s own documentation! Who were the 3 voters? Why did they vote the way they did? This information MUST be provided to the community!

And what is the point of strong/weak yes/no votes (4 options in total) when it’s a yes/no, pass/fail (2 voting results) system? Three of the options are NO votes (“weak yes” is a NO vote). Only “strong yes” is a YES vote. Voting system seems illogical and unnecessary