While blockchain ecosystems are largely individual, there seems to be collective convergences. Like there was a season where everyone gave out large grants with little due diligence. But since everyone else was doing it, it felt right and necessary. Now we're in a different phase where every project "must have product market fit" and stand on its own. I've seen firsthand in Cosmos that dApp builders writing smart contracts simply cannot introduce middleman fees (value from end users) and extract enough revenue to sustain. Looking at the NDC Elections, "854 / 3155 Humans Voted" although not everyone wants to go through KYC or is interested in elections, so perhaps the number is 5x-10x. It's an important ballpark number to contemplate, because I believe there exists a threshold — some number of ✌🏼real✌🏼 active users — that determines whether financial sustainability is possible. If the number is too low, then reality flies in the face of "product market fit" as it's traditionally known. In order to extract sufficient value by taking fees from end users, projects would have to increase fees to be inordinately expensive. Risky. Not good for the community, either. I think a few ecosystems fall below the threshold at the moment, and NEAR may be one of them. I think we need to think outside the box if we wish to have organic developers building on NEAR in the early days. **Solutions?** The first thought that comes to mind: **matching fees**. A benefactor (or a few) create a pool of funds and those are distributed and matched via real users. Basically: subsidies, but the good kind. Will people abuse it? Yes. Will we able to curtail all of it? No. But most of it? Yes. I also like the fact that once you read a "bad idea" it spurs other people on to constructively criticize until maybe we find a good result. Let's try it