Well said Brotherš¤
The outcome is definitely going to be thriving & dynamic 
3 Likes
The proposal is now published and ready to be voted on on Tally! 
8 Likes
Voted!
Letās make this happen 
4 Likes
Letās push this everyone
1 Like
I support the initivative
1 Like
Alright letās get to work
1 Like
No vote is little here mate
3 Likes
I got that Broš
Best advice for all.
Ensure you all get that vote countingā:100:
2 Likes
Voted already
Feels good to be a part of this for real
2 Likes
We reached quorum. The vote has passed
Get ready for season 2!
2 Likes
Good to hear
Letās goo!!
1 Like
Quorum reached, looking forward to Season 2.
1 Like
Hyped for season 2
Letās make lisk great
2 Likes
Faet Studio Public Statement on Lisk Grant Denial
On behalf of Faet Studio, we must express our deep concern and disappointment regarding the denial of our Season 2 grant application. The only reason provided was that our project was āout of scope,ā with no further explanation.
This is surprising because our proposal was refined over several weeks in direct communication with the Grants Council, during which we received positive feedback and clear signals that it aligned with the program. We submitted our bridge application on the 13th of last month. Shortly after, the Lisk Team itself submitted a nearly identical proposal to the DAO to bridge LSK to Base, even using the same rationale we outlined for why bridging is squarely within the scope of the Season 2 grant program.
This raises a fundamental question: How can our bridge be declared āout of scope,ā while the DAO is now being asked to consider the same approach by the Lisk Team? If the DAO is asked to vote on such a proposal, then by definition it is within scope.
We also must highlight inconsistencies in the application process:
- We were required to provide detailed TVL estimates in USD for every milestone, while another project was approved for 100 percent upfront funding without attaching any TVL estimates.
When applicants are held to different standards, builders are left uncertain about how to align with the process. More importantly, such inconsistencies undermine confidence in the fairness and credibility of the grant program.
Faet Studio has already delivered two successful Lisk grants, producing measurable results: the highest-value NFT collection on Lisk, a live ERC-20 token with staking contracts, and sustainable liquidity pools. Our track record demonstrates our reliability and our commitment to building long-term value for the ecosystem.
Our bridge proposal is not just about FAET. By implementing the Optimism Standard Bridge architecture, it creates an open pathway for any Lisk-native ERC-20 token to bridge into the Superchain. This directly supports Season 2ās stated goals of growing non-LSK TVL, increasing Superchain volume, and contributing revenue to the Optimism Collective.
We therefore call on the DAO to demand clarity:
-
Why was our application rejected as āout of scopeā while a nearly identical proposal is now advanced by the Lisk Team?
-
Why are applicants held to inconsistent standards that make the process opaque and unpredictable?
-
How will the DAO ensure that the grant program reflects fairness, consistency, and alignment with its own published goals?
Faet Studio remains committed to building for the Lisk ecosystem. But transparency and accountability must be the foundation of this program if it is to attract and retain serious builders. We believe the DAO has the power ā and the responsibility ā to ensure that this foundation is upheld. If our proposal is not within scope it should be clearly identified why and other potential solutions that align with the grant program should be given.
**The DAO must decide if it will stand for fairness and consistency, or risk discouraging the very builders it seeks to empower.
**
ā Faet Studio
3 Likes
@SuperchainEco What is happening?
Why are projects like Faet not being allowed to grow?
1 Like
Update: We did get a detailed response as requested. After discussion we agree that the proposal for the bridge for our project may be too early so we will explore other options to align with the grant and our projects goals. We just wish this would have been shared with us much earlier in the process. (weeks ago)
We appreciate the opportunity to submit another proposal and we hope to have more clarity and haste in moving along with the process. Thanks for your attention to this matter!
2 Likes
Thatās not the case here @grumlin
Based on experience, after an application is submitted, reviewers request clarification to better understand the viability of the project within the scope of the season. This process takes time and can sometimes be misinterpreted as āPositiveā or āNegativeā feedback, when in reality, they are just inquiries for better clarity (IMO).
That would explain this:
Applicants should keep in mind that there are many things a reviewer cannot be certain of at the early stages - Hence the inquiry and feedback loop.
That said, I agree that Prompt reviews and feedback would go a long way to smoothen the process.
The review council should look into that 
This comment says it all:
I would like to bring serious concerns to the DAO about the current state of the Lisk Grant council and their approval process and itās negative impact on lisk builders and our ability to navigate building on Lisk.
The grant council is asking Liskās #1 native project to request less funding than literal rug-pull scams that stole from the Lisk community and DAO.
This misses the core intent of the DAO-approved funding program: to support real builders on Lisk. As even noted by Jash from the council, Faet Studio consistently holds #1 on-chain metrics.
Instead of being supported, our project has been scrutinized more than any other application. Despite proving ourselves as the top NFT project and most liquid native ERC-20 token on Lisk, we were told:
āWhy canāt you produce comparable products like Stormbot and Lucred,ā
who only received 30k LSK each.
Our response is simple: Stormbot and Lucred were scams. Together they collected 60k LSK, rugpulled their contracts, and disappeared.
After weeks of feed back and upon denying our application, we were told:
āYou should ask for half as much as projects like Stormbot, Lucred, [and others].ā
This is despite the fact that Faet has real users, the #1 on-chain token metrics, and an active social media presence.
Why This Matters
The councilās role is to support builders and separate legitimate projects from scams. Yet Faet Studio, one of the oldest continuously building teams on Lisk, is being denied while scam projects are funded and other projects are not required to provide the same measurable metrics as us.
For context:
-
Faet Studio has built the #1 NFT and token ecosystem on Lisk.
-
Highest trading volume and floor price of any Lisk NFT.
-
Most liquid LSK trading pair for a native ERC-20 token.
-
Active staking portal with custom UI, airdrop portal, Velodrome/Rarible integration, and a live playable game demo using minted Lisk NFTs.
-
NFTs with technically superior design: on-chain metadata, IPFS storage, and cross-game utility.
-
By comparison, here is just a sample of where council funds actually went:
-
Lucred (25k LSK):
Rugpulled, contract drained days after final grant payment.
Fake dashboard displayed ālocked fundsā but vault was emptied.
Contract | Frontend -
Stormbot (35k LSK):
No contracts, no metrics, no website, social media abandoned after zelle campaign ended and grant funding colelcted. -
Propellant (23.5k LSK):
Contracts non-functional, all txs failed.
Contract | Token -
Vaquita (35k LSK):
Only 5 transactions, no TVL, no frontend, no presence.
Thatās 118,000 LSK allocated to projects with no milestones, no activity, or outright rugpulls. This doesnāt even count the many projects that disappeared after receiving their first milestone payment.
Meanwhile, similar web3 projects like Powerpals and despite having received (3.1 million) in previous funding produced products with vastly weaker tech and only slightly higher user numbers than Faet.
In Summary
-
Faet Studio is the #1 native builder on Lisk by every measurable metric: NFT volume, token liquidity, users, and a large community.
-
We requested a fair 120k LSK to keep building and expanding the ecosystem, similar to another project which did not have to provide any on-metrics or measurable milestones.
-
Instead of support, we were told to ask for less than literal rugpull scams. (It was recommended we request $5,000).
The DAO created this program to grow Lisk by funding builders. Weāve proven our work and results, and yet the council is holding Faet Studio back while funding empty shells and scams.
All weāre asking for is the chance to continue building and growing Lisk with transparency, real products, and real users. The grant council should reconsider itās decision.
If the grant council will not reconsider its decision, then at the very least The SuperchainEco team and the grant council should publish a detailed breakdown of how funding has been allocated, along with the measurable impact of those allocations.
Surely, if Faet Studio is not considered worthy of continued growth on Liskāand has even been told to request less funding than projects that openly rugpulled and disappearedāthen the council should have no issue demonstrating to the DAO which funded projects have delivered superior on-chain metrics, adoption, and outcomes.
This would not only clarify the standards we are being asked to meet, but also set a transparent bar for Faet Studio and other applicants to fairly compete in future grant rounds.
1 Like
Hi @ultrafresh1
First off, thank you for continuing to build on Lisk and for raising your concerns openly. We recognize Faet as the leading NFT project on Lisk and appreciate the effort and persistence youāve shown. That said, a few clarifications are important for the community:
Process
In Season 2, all applications are reviewed against the DAO-approved intents:
- Growth of non-LSK TVl
- Growth in transaction volume
- Cross-Superchain flows and adoption
Our approach also reflects key learnings from Season 1, where we saw that funding projects without clear TVL or usage targets often failed to deliver sustainable outcomes. This season, the emphasis is on measurable traction and alignment with ecosystem-wide growth, rather than comparisons to past allocations or other projects.
Past Grants
Not all projects received their full allocation, linking our season 1 sheet here. For example, Vaquita did not complete its milestones and therefore did not receive the full amount. In general, those grants were smaller (20ā35k LSK), whereas your request was 120k LSK.
Current Traction based on data and Recent Application.
In your Season 2 application, you estimated that 120k LSK budget would generate ~$100k TVL in net new inflow and 2ā10k volume of transactions. Looking at the data today:
-
Velodrome Pool: Initially funded with 15k LSK from your initial grant, the pool reached around $9k TVL, but now sits closer to ~$1.6k.
-
Staking Contract: The staking system launched with 368.6M FAET deposited. Current balances are ~359.2M FAET, showing no meaningful growth since launch.
-
NFT Trading: The Faet Founders Pass has generated ~$3,300 in lifetime trading volume.
With these numbers, it is difficult to justify the requested budget at this stage. This does not take away from the fact that Faet has been one of the most consistent builders on Lisk. Building sustainable projects is hard, especially in todayās market, and we commend the progress youāve made so far.Rather than focusing on the shortcomings of other projects, we believe the best path forward is to work together on a plan that aligns your strengths with the current goals of the DAO. The Council would be happy to sit down and discuss how we can best support Faetās continued growth on Lisk.
ā The Lisk Grants Council
2 Likes
Hi Jash. How do you distinguish projects that are genuinely building from those that just want to extract funds and disappear? Do you have anyone on your team who can review the smart contracts?
I looked at the Lucred smart contract Ultrafresh mentioned. It isnāt production ready in any shape or form. I wouldnāt even call it a PoC. Users can set their own APY, and the contract owner can withdraw funds. They have a decent looking website and are registered in Nigeria (not sure how rigorous that is), but thatās about it.
Regarding the Ultrafresh case, Iāve checked his proposal as well. Iāve known Ultrafresh from the Lisk community for many years, and I donāt want to offend anyone here, I may not have the full picture. That said, as I read the proposal, Ultrafresh requested 120k to create a bridgeable FAET token, which isnāt particularly novel or unique. The Optimism SDK already provides whatās needed to do this, and itās a standard procedure for projects that want their own token on multiple EVM networks especially Superchain networks. In my experience, this could be done in a day plus testing, please correct me if Iām wrong. If the funds are intended for broader development, that should be stated and requested as such.
Iāll end it with my own quote:
3 Likes