Elevating Worthy Projects to the Next Level: Game7's Accelerator/Incubator Program

[Delroy]

Introduction

I’m writing to propose the creation of an Accelerator/Incubator program for Game7 to support worthy projects that are not yet ready for grants or investments. The program will be designed to provide education, mentorship, and resources to help these projects reach their full potential and contribute to the growth of the Web3 ecosystem.

Background

Game7 is a community initiative that aims to serve as a conduit for communication and information-sharing within the Web3 ecosystem for blockchain games, game platforms, and tools. The organization conducts research to gather information from leading game developers in the space and presents it without bias.

The Need for an Accelerator/Incubator Program

The blockchain gaming industry is rapidly growing, but many worthy projects are not yet ready for grants or investments. These projects often lack the resources, mentorship, and education needed to reach their full potential and make meaningful contributions to the Web3 ecosystem.

An Accelerator/Incubator program would provide these projects with the support they need to succeed. The program would provide education, mentorship, and resources to help these projects reach their full potential and contribute to the growth of the Web3 ecosystem.

Program Design

The Accelerator/Incubator program would be designed to provide education, mentorship, and resources to help projects reach their full potential and contribute to the growth of the Web3 ecosystem. This would include:

1. Education on blockchain technology and its applications in gaming
2. Mentorship from experienced game developers and industry experts
3. Access to resources such as funding, networking opportunities, and marketing support
4. A supportive and inclusive environment for collaboration and sharing of information

Benefits of the Accelerator/Incubator Program

1. The program would provide support to worthy projects that are not yet ready for grants or investments
2. It would help these projects reach their full potential and make meaningful contributions to the Web3 ecosystem
3. The program would align with Game7’s mission to serve as a conduit for communication and information-sharing within the Web3 ecosystem for blockchain games, game platforms, and tools.
4. It would also align with Game7’s focus on unbiased research and its goal to create a positive, supportive, and inclusive environment for collaboration and sharing of information within the Web3 game developer ecosystem.

Conclusion

I believe that an Accelerator/Incubator program for Game7 would be an important step in supporting worthy projects that are not yet ready for grants or investments. The program would provide education, mentorship, and resources to help these projects reach their full potential and contribute to the growth of the Web3 ecosystem. I look forward to discussing this proposal further with Game7 and working together to create a successful program.

TLDR Comments Summary as of 2/3/2023

@Hornet suggests that the program should be extended to web2 gaming as well, in order to not miss any opportunities.

@KT_the_Kiltman suggests that networking should be removed from the program, as it might not be as valuable and instead more time should be put into teaching how to develop and deliver their pitch, using twitter spaces as a public forum to practice.

@Junior suggests alternative methods for measuring the success of the program such as gathering written feedback on specific gains and areas for improvement in mentorship, assessing which resources were most beneficial and which were lacking, tracking the specific ways in which participating projects have used and benefited from collaboration opportunities and evaluating the specific connections and opportunities created through networking.

@DaveY suggests that the objective of such a program should be defined so a potential participant understands what the main objective is and where such a program begins/ends in the lifecycle and mentions that this might be dependent on where a project is.

@Chel suggests that many founders might prefer a short accelerator program, not more than a month or two of really intensive work during that period and that a flexible program length could be considered.

@GrandMarquis TL;DR: I see an opportunity to structure this program in a way that will empower web3 game dev teams, but without the large operational lift to properly launch, operate and maintain an accelerator. I’d propose here an expert forum to match the needs of project teams (open to all!) against volunteer expert advice, mentorship and educational resources from throughout the Game7 Community.

@nejc suggests the author @Delroy’s proposal was appreciated, but suggested caution in supporting too many initiatives at once and instead focusing on a few smaller initiatives first. He believe that taking on smaller, more agile initiatives will better prepare the community for larger ones in the future. He also suggest focusing on one or two pieces of the proposal and expanding on them, specifically mentioning: initial product development, go to market assistance, establishing product/market fit, and project scale/preparation for growth. He advise creating a more detailed proposal around one of these points.

@gsi supports the direction of Delroy’s idea to empower teams, but raises concerns about the sustainability and operational challenges of providing funding for all teams, given the increased demand for funding in the current market. They clarify that the grants program has a demo requirement for applicants, but the criteria for funding decisions depends on the level of financial request. gsi is open to hearing the community’s opinions on how to improve the grants program.

NOTE: The comment summary section is ONLY to help new comers to the thread catch up to the conversation and not an indication of what the future program will be.

[Junior]

As a (somewhat) young founder, I really support this initiative proposal.
Even minimal support and resources could be of immense value to worthy projects that are not yet ready for funding, and need guidance and direction.

One suggestion I have is to consider structuring the program in terms of different cohorts, specifically for blockchain games, game platforms, and tools, as each one comes with a different mission even though there might be some overlaps in certain areas.

Do you have any thoughts on how the program should be structured in terms of time scope and KPR’s?

[Delroy]

In terms of time scope, the Accelerator/Incubator program could be structured as a 12-week or 3-month program. This allows for enough time for the participating projects to receive education, mentorship, and resources while also allowing for the program to be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of different projects.

In terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the program could be structured to measure the following:

1. Education: The program should measure the level of education and understanding of blockchain technology and its applications in gaming that participating projects have gained. One way to measure this is through pre- and post-program assessments, where participating projects are given a test on blockchain technology and its applications in gaming before and after the program. This will allow the program to measure how much knowledge has been gained.

2. Mentorship: The program should measure the level of mentorship and guidance that participating projects have received. One way to measure this is through feedback surveys, where participating projects are asked to rate the quality of mentorship they received on a scale of 1-5. This will allow the program to measure the effectiveness of the mentorship provided.

3. Resources: The program should measure the level of resources and support that participating projects have received. One way to measure this is through a resource utilization survey, where participating projects are asked to rate the usefulness of the resources provided on a scale of 1-5. This will allow the program to measure the effectiveness of the resources provided.

4. Collaboration and Sharing of Information: The program should measure the level of collaboration and sharing of information that has occurred between participating projects. One way to measure this is through a collaboration survey, where participating projects are asked to rate the level of collaboration and sharing of information on a scale of 1-5. This will allow the program to measure the effectiveness of the collaboration and sharing of information provided.

5. Success of Participating Projects: The program should measure the level of success that participating projects have achieved. This could include metrics such as user acquisition, revenue, and funding raised. One way to measure this is through a progress report, where participating projects are required to provide updates on their progress in terms of user acquisition, revenue, and funding raised.

6. Community engagement: The program should measure the level of engagement with the community, the number of events and activities organized, and the number of attendees. One way to measure this is through a community engagement survey, where community members are asked to rate their level of engagement with the program on a scale of 1-5.

7. Graduation rate: The program should measure the number of projects that successfully graduated from the program. One way to measure this is by keeping track of the number of projects that successfully complete the program and the number of projects that drop out.

8. Networking: The program should measure the number of networking opportunities and the number of connections made. One way to measure this is through a networking survey, where participating projects are asked to rate the number of networking opportunities and the number of connections made on a scale of 1-5.

[Hornet]

The accelerator is a great idea especially when it offers assistance to the said gaming company or gaming platform. The purpose I really do get that this mostly for web3 gaming only. But I think this needs be looked at for web2 as well, with the understanding of transitioning or immediately connecting with web3. My game will be going after both web2 and web3 platforms. I just don’t intend to leave no opportunities on the table.

[KT_the_Kiltman]

I like it overall, but would remove the networking piece. it is painfully easy to reach a networking KPI with zero actual investment or interest from those connected with.

I will have to think about how success in a similar area is measured. While connecting in person is extremely valuable, simply collecting contacts can be done with mailchimp.

I would put more time into teaching how to develop and deliver their pitch, using twitter spaces as a public forum to practice.

[Junior]

Love it! I have some notes when it comes to measuring success of KPIs, as I think surveys might not be the best choice.

Alternative methods we could implement:

• Gathering written feedback on specific gains and areas for improvement in mentorship
• Assessing which resources were most beneficial and which were lacking
• Tracking the specific ways in which participating projects have used and benefited from collaboration opportunities
• Evaluating the specific connections and opportunities created through networking

I believe this could provide more actionable and accurate feedback for program administrators to improve the program in the long run, especially in kick-off stage where we try to perfect the system.

[Delroy]

@Junior

Alternative methods we could implement:

• Gathering written feedback on specific gains and areas for improvement in mentorship
• Assessing which resources were most beneficial and which were lacking
• Tracking the specific ways in which participating projects have used and benefited from collaboration opportunities
• Evaluating the specific connections and opportunities created through networking

@Junior I like these as well Hey @KT_the_Kiltman do you have any thoughts on these vs the ones i suggested.

[KT_the_Kiltman]

gathering metrics information about how a project is progressing is key to understanding how a project will grow and evolve.

1. regular, timely feedback is necessary.
2. SWOT analysis of the project, knowing what they have and what they need.
3. analyzing how the project is used and how it is not, and comparing to the intent of the developers. Seeing where changes can be made, and leaning into the ways the project is used and expanding on them.
4. Connections can be evaluated easily by how much these value connections contribute to the project , monetary, knowledge, or some other kind of support.

[DaveY]

Chipping in here. I think the objective of such a program should be defined so a potential participant understands what the main objective is and where such a program begins/ends in the lifecycle. This might be dependent on where a project is.

Examples:
Initial Product Development
Go to Market Assistance
Establish Product/Market Fit
Project Scale/Preparation for Growth (ie making the project attractive to outside users, investors, etc)

Each of these stages means different things and mentor skillsets. I’ll throw my hat in the ring to be a mentor where appropriate!

[Chel]

Just reading this now and Really Love the idea of this, Also being a Young Founder building Portals Xperience - A Multiverse plus Web3 Gaming Guild, I know from experience that some Founders do not yet require Major Investments, Equity and all of that. They are past Validating their ideas, and are Working on the first Elements of Community & MVP, But they still require Time & resources to Refine their idea, paint their Direction. Such a Program like this would be the Best Path IMO.

The way I see it, Many Founders might Prefer a Short Accelerator Program, Not More then a Month or Two Of really Intensive work during those period. In other words, I consider a 3 month Accelerator too long, as I would most like be long ready for the next Stage in Dev.

Maybe a Flexible Program Length could be Considered? Like accessing where a Project is at, Speaking with the Builders etc.

[Delroy]

@DaveY

Chipping in here. I think the objective of such a program should be defined so a potential participant understands what the main objective is and where such a program begins/ends in the lifecycle. This might be dependent on where a project is.

Examples:
Initial Product Development
Go to Market Assistance
Establish Product/Market Fit
Project Scale/Preparation for Growth (ie making the project attractive to outside users, investors, etc)

Each of these stages means different things and mentor skillsets. I’ll throw my hat in the ring to be a mentor where appropriate!

great point, as would love to have you as one of the program mentors @DaveY

[Delroy]

@Chel

Just reading this now and Really Love the idea of this, Also being a Young Founder building Portals Xperience - A Multiverse plus Web3 Gaming Guild, I know from experience that some Founders do not yet require Major Investments, Equity and all of that. They are past Validating their ideas, and are Working on the first Elements of Community & MVP, But they still require Time & resources to Refine their idea, paint their Direction. Such a Program like this would be the Best Path IMO.

The way I see it, Many Founders might Prefer a Short Accelerator Program, Not More then a Month or Two Of really Intensive work during those period. In other words, I consider a 3 month Accelerator too long, as I would most like be long ready for the next Stage in Dev.

Maybe a Flexible Program Length could be Considered? Like accessing where a Project is at, Speaking with the Builders etc.

Yes it seem like everyone is in line so far with a short term Short Accelerator/Incubator Program. I think there is a place for both as some projects may need more time than others.

[GrandMarquis]

TL;DR: I see an opportunity to structure this program in a way that will empower web3 game dev teams, but without the large operational lift to properly launch, operate and maintain an accelerator. I’d propose here an expert forum to match the needs of project teams (open to all!) against volunteer expert advice, mentorship and educational resources from throughout the Game7 Community.

—
Intro
Thank you for proposing this idea @Delroy as a way to help web3 dev teams with mentorship, education and solutions to their most pressing challenges. Appreciate your thoughts too around measuring impact and executing on the program. I agree we can do more as a community to help teams that aspire to impact (or even transform) the space with their products. And for some of these teams, it may even make sense as they mature or find product market fit to seek a grant or investment from Game7.

Why I disagree with an the proposed Accelerator at this stage of Game7, but agree on the goals of this proposal

I do however think that the Grants program needs more time to see results, before we create a second program designed to provide resources to teams that were not successful in their applications (for whatever reasons). I believe there are other ways to provide the support you’ve envisioned to teams with aspirations to impact the web3 ecosystem. In short, creating a program that complements the grants program instead of one that is a substitute for it for a subset of the community.

In thinking on this, I wanted to tease out for myself more precisely how this program could go beyond what we see today at Game7. I definitely see Game7 itself as a blockchain gaming accelerator and incubator. We provide capital and strategic support to promising projects developing open source solutions through our tech grants program. We commit strategic capital in a similar fashion, with support from partners for projects that we believe could impact the space broadly. And, we incubate larger efforts like Hyperplay that can solve foundational challenges that face all web3 game developers.

So, while we devote capital towards the teams leading projects that are primed to impact the space, how can we bring additional resources to bear on teams that aspire to do so themselves? With the grants program at such a nascent stage, we need more time for the builders to reach their milestones, deliver on their commitments and for the program to measure and optimize its efforts against these results. In the meantime, there is an area that you highlight at the heart of your proposal where I think we could expand our efforts to support all community members: education and mentorship.

While an accelerator within Game7 would require a large operational lift before we could even begin to reach these teams and support them in an equitable fashion, I see a lightweight solution that would accomplish our goals without needing to create new sets of criteria to evaluate teams or otherwise pass any judgment (worthy vs. unworthy) on teams, projects etc…

Where to take this next

There’s been some discussion about ways to improve the connections between experts in our community and teams with both specific and general questions across all things “building in web3.” One idea that’s been floated, is to establish a purpose-built Discord channel or Forum to connect subject matter experts with teams seeking expert opinions and/or mentorship within the Game7 community. I’m confident we could set this up quite quickly, and that it would provide solutions to any team that steps up to share their needs, albeit in a community/crowd-sourced fashion. @nejc has some more thoughts on this.

While experts and those weighing in publicly on the forum with advice will receive reputational benefit, the teams receive the education/mentorship they seek and the larger Game7 community benefits from enhancing our general web3 educational offerings. I see a wins all around while fulfilling the Game7 mandate in a way that is effective and easy to execute.

Look forward to discussing this further! And just want to thank you again for taking the initiative to think on this and propose a way to help teams succeed in Blockchain Gaming.

Cheers,

Michael

P.S. Love the running TLDR comment summary you’ve got going on the thread!

[Delroy]

@GrandMarquis

TL;DR: I see an opportunity to structure this program in a way that will empower web3 game dev teams, but without the large operational lift to properly launch, operate and maintain an accelerator. I’d propose here an expert forum to match the needs of project teams (open to all!) against volunteer expert advice, mentorship and educational resources from throughout the Game7 Community.

Thank you for your input, @GrandMarquis . I appreciate your ideas on how to structure the program in a way that will benefit web3 game development teams and your proposal for an expert forum to connect project teams with volunteer expert advice, mentorship, and educational resources from the Game7 community.

I understand your concerns about the operational challenges of launching an accelerator program, and your suggestion to give the grants program more time to mature. It is true that currently, Game7’s grants program only offers grants to projects that have a demo, which can limit the scope of projects that can benefit from the program.

One potential solution to this issue could be to update the grants program to allocate a portion of the funding towards projects that don’t have demos. For example, allocating 75% of the funds towards projects that have demos and 25% towards worthy projects that do not have demos. This would allow for more diversity in the types of projects that can benefit from the program.

In terms of Hyperplay, as a competitor to my own product Invo, I will refrain from commenting on them too much. However, I would like to note that on paper, Invo is a better solution and has connections with major studios.

[GrandMarquis]

@Delroy

It is true that currently, Game7’s grants program only offers grants to projects that have a demo, which can limit the scope of projects that can benefit from the program.

One potential solution to this issue could be to update the grants program to allocate a portion of the funding towards projects that don’t have demos.

I wasn’t aware of this requirement! However, I can see how having a product demo provides valuable information to the grants team about the capacity of the applicants to deliver on their vision. I hope they’ll consider your suggestion here.

@Delroy

This would allow for more diversity in the types of projects that can benefit from the program.

In this context, by “diversity” do you mean projects that are at an earlier stage (i.e. pre- demo ready) in their development?

[Delroy]

@GrandMarquis

In this context, by “diversity” do you mean projects that are at an earlier stage (i.e. pre- demo ready) in their development?

Indeed, that was my original thought when proposing the idea of diversity in terms of project types. By providing mentorship and education in addition to financial support, we can ensure that the grantees have the necessary tools and resources to effectively develop and bring their projects to fruition. This not only increases the chances of success for the grantees, but also contributes to the growth and development of the web3 gaming community as a whole. Furthermore, this approach aligns with the mandate of Game7 to provide strategic capital and support to promising projects that have the potential to impact the space broadly. By providing a comprehensive support system, we can empower teams to reach their full potential and make a significant impact in the web3 gaming ecosystem

[Delroy]

@nejc don’t leave me hanging here my friend let me know your thoughts on this proposal.

@GrandMarquis

@Delroy

It is true that currently, Game7’s grants program only offers grants to projects that have a demo, which can limit the scope of projects that can benefit from the program.

One potential solution to this issue could be to update the grants program to allocate a portion of the funding towards projects that don’t have demos.

I wasn’t aware of this requirement! However, I can see how having a product demo provides valuable information to the grants team about the capacity of the applicants to deliver on their vision. I hope they’ll consider your suggestion here.

Also @gsi whats your thought on what @GrandMarquis said here I think everyone would love to get your feedback and also some form the grant committee members.

[nejc]

Thanks for putting this together @Delroy! The proposal hits on many of the right points! However, while I think that we should jointly support any initiative that gets meaningful traction, we should be wary of getting spread out too thin.

I myself see it more opportunely to take a handful of ‘smaller’ community initiatives through the process before we venture down the path of a larger one. Doing this will make us as a community better prepped for any large initiative we take on in the (near) future. While there can be a time and place for every initiative, I see it as a more realistic outcome to perhaps extract one or two pieces from what you propose and attempt to expand on that. Thereby, we will have a smaller, more agile initiative, one that we could execute on as a community in a more realistic manner.

Initial Product Development
Go to Market Assistance
Establish Product/Market Fit
Project Scale/Preparation for Growth (ie making the project attractive to outside users, investors, etc)

Just from these, I can see definite overlap with some of the (super early stage) Community Initiative Proposals I am actively discussing with a plethora of fellow community members. My advice would be to take one and create a fleshed-out proposal strictly around it. Again, you hit on a lot of good points here and I hope you will take some of this further in some capacity!

[gsi]

Thanks for sharing, Delroy.

The direction of this idea-empowering teams to do their first step-is worth supporting 100%. However, I don’t feel it is sustainable for any funding initiative to have a value proposition for every team out there, especially in today’s market, where demand for funding has significantly increased.

Imo it is very demanding operationally and challenging to be accountable to the community for the resources spent on something with this level of delivery risk.

One thing that I wanted to clarify was the demo requirement for grant applicants. At the moment, we welcome applications at any development stage, from idea to production. However, we have different expectations and criteria depending on the level of financial request, and any decision by the committee reflects a number of considerations.

This thread already contains some very interesting ideas. As the grants program is a dynamic initiative formed by the needs of the broader ecosystem, I am more than happy to hear the community’s voice on how it can be improved.

[Delroy]

@gsi

One thing that I wanted to clarify was the demo requirement for grant applicants. At the moment, we welcome applications at any development stage, from idea to production. However, we have different expectations and criteria depending on the level of financial request, and any decision by the committee reflects a number of considerations.

Thank you for clarifying the demo requirement for grant applicants, @gsi. It’s great to know that applications are welcomed at various development stages and that different expectations and criteria are taken into consideration based on the level of financial request. I believe that having a clear understanding of the requirements and expectations can help ensure that the grant program remains effective and relevant to the needs of the ecosystem. Are there any plans to consider feedback from the community to make further improvements to the program in the future?