<aside> 🪧 This rubric shows publicly how all applications received from the RWAIG form are evaluated. The RWAIG team will use these criteria to provide a score to each application received or, in the event, discard it immediately if it violates one or more of the conditions mentioned.
</aside>
Note: This rubric is to be used in addition to the Initial Gitcoin Screening Application review rubric.
| Rate | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume of Assets Tokenized | None | Low (minimal assets tokenized) | Medium (some assets tokenized) | High (large volume tokenized) |
| Benefit of Project for Arbitrum Users | Non-real benefits | At least one | Tangible benefits | Detailed benefits with |
| metrics provided | ||||
| Product Roadmap Definition | None provided | Low clarity & high-level | Quite clear & comprehensive | Perfectly clear & comprehensive |
| Deployment on Arbitrum | No plans yet | Earliest deployment 12+ months | Earliest deployment 6-12 months | Earliest deployment up to 6 months |
| Legal & Regulatory Considerations | High level of risk | Medium to high level of risk | Low to medium level of risk | No risk |
| Benefit of Project for Arbitrum Protocols | No integrations possible | Low level of integration possible (1-2 projects) | Medium level of integration possible (3-8 projects) | High level of integration possible (8+ projects) |
| Growth Potential | None to very minimal | Low to medium | Medium to high | High |
| Estimated Usage | None to very minimal | Low to medium | Medium to high | High |
| GTM Plan | None provided | Low clarity & high-level | Quite clear & comprehensive | Perfectly clear & comprehensive |
| KPIs Outlined | No tracking available | Fairly trackable | Trackable | Easy and |
| updated tracking | ||||
| Security Audit | Not planned | Mentioned without details | Details and info featured | Excellent plan |