Response to shreyas and the near foundation

Dear Shreyas,

We would like to express our deep disappointment with the lack of support and attention from the NEAR Foundation towards the NFT ecosystem on their platform. Our team at 171 Studios has put in countless hours of work, delivering over 100 pages of research and four comprehensive proposals, all aimed at contributing to the growth and development of the NFT community on NEAR. Unfortunately, our efforts have been met with vague responses, constant redirection to different individuals, and no tangible outcomes to show for it.

The state of NFTs on NEAR is a clear indication of the Foundation’s neglect and disregard for the community. Despite the numerous potential benefits that NFTs bring to the ecosystem, the Foundation has focused its efforts on partnerships that have proven to be either a failure or a total scam. The Head of NFTs, Alex, was brought in to deliver results, but his role and the Foundation’s focus on NFTs have become increasingly unclear. Is anyone even responsible for the NFT Ecosystem anymore? In our opinion, this lack of direction and support will be fatal to the entire ecosystem.

The proposed solution to the NFT problem on NEAR by the Foundation - to pass the responsibility onto the NDC - is a gross mismanagement of the situation and undermines the efforts of the community to contribute and grow the NFT ecosystem on NEAR. Our last proposal to the Foundation, which asked for a mere 6-month runway to incubate projects, was a fraction of our initial ask and was intended to prove the viability of our proposal. The lack of response from the Foundation has been disheartening and discouraging for our team and the wider ecosystem.

We have spoken to key NFT stakeholders on NEAR, who share our sentiment that the current state of the NFT ecosystem is unacceptable and that it no longer makes sense to launch new projects without clarity from the leadership on their long-term vision for NFTs on the platform. We demand transparency and a clear plan from the Foundation for creating a thriving NFT ecosystem on NEAR, one that supports and empowers the NFT community to succeed.

In our last call with the Foundation, one of their employees even told us that the current NFT downturn on NEAR was due to general market conditions and is the same on every ecosystem. This statement is incredibly delusional and completely disregards the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the NFT ecosystem on NEAR. We advise this individual to have a look at our latest NFT project, @MACKS_NFT, and learn some lessons about the potential for NFTs on other Ecosystems as the community we have built there is already larger than the active NFT community on Near.

In conclusion, we would like to express our gratitude to you Sheryas for your efforts in bringing attention to our work and at least providing some semblance of closure, but we must also bring to light the shortcomings and neglect of the NEAR Foundation towards the NFT community on their platform. We hope that this letter serves as a wake-up call for the Foundation to take the necessary steps towards creating a thriving NFT ecosystem on NEAR.

Illuminfti & @171_Studio


Alex should be in constant communication with leading stakeholders in the NFT space and present on public forums.

Given that this hasn’t been present nor have there been any significant brand partnerships it begs the question - what is the purpose of the role?

There are several communities who are bringing far more value add to the space.

As the customer, we need more transparency as to the goals of the role and the measures being taken to achieve these goals.

This is web3, but feels like we are only achieving web1 levels of accountability.


You could consider tagging the person, so everyone knows who you mean and they have a chance to respond to your criticism.

I see this notion popping up quite frequently. People seem to confuse being a token holder in web3 with holding voting rights as stockholder in a public company registered at a TradFi stock exchange.
Although our industry is making strides in decentralizing governance, the processes are being worked out and a final product hasn’t been delivered yet.

You would be right to call for more transparency as a community member, as it is one of the core principals of web3.

And just a side note: I get what you are trying to convey, but web1 isn’t really an apt comparison here. Web1 was mainly characterized by it’s technical limitations: static, read-only HTML pages, difficult to post, discover or monetize. It has little to do accountability.

1 Like

With respects to the “as a customer” i believe what @NicheMoney is referring to is End User, not share holder.

End Users are very much our customers and should have the greatest impact on the decisions we make as they are the only ones we are beholden to. Without End Users, it doesnt matter how good our tech its, the product is useless.


Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense!

1 Like

Nft was a concept brought to Web3 to provide long term opportunities for communities and holders!!
NearNft was doing well till the bear run which happened last year caused chaos to must project and their plans.
It’s great to know what studio171 are doing and hope you guys work on bringing back NFT and great utilities to the community.

Wish you all the best as we all bring near to the moon :full_moon_with_face::first_quarter_moon_with_face:with solidarity…
Big ups


Thanks for speaking up and raising your concerns. has been petitioning for marketing support for over a year. No results. Endless redirections, excuses and flimsy rationalizations.

Meanwhile other projects have taken grants, received promos, sold pre-sales to NEAR users, before finally moving on to other ecosystems. All without delivering on promises. Some are even transparently rugged.

I appreciate that the grant system is used to grow the ecosystem. However as a project that showed up with a working gamefi/NFT dapp, we shouldn’t be excluded because we choose to build and serve users instead of politicking for free funds.

It isn’t so much of a neglect of the community as a community with malign incentives. There’s nothing wrong with a VC backed chain. However the community needs to be managed in a competent way. There’s nothing inclusive about using the grant system to gatekeep organic projects. In a sane world released projects would take precedence over vaporware.

Other developers have come forward and shared their concerns with me. The original poster isn’t alone in his concerns.


What are your thoughts on the NEAR strategic 2023 outlook?

Top down - BD and large partnertships, onboard large number of users, web 2.5 approach

Bottoms up - community initiatives to be channeled through NDC. No real limits on what can be funded there.

I guess my question is:

  • what are the outstanding issues that didn’t enable collaboration with Creatives DAO?
  • what would be the hurdles to go through NDC?

Gotta look at the bigger picture - they’ve defunded everything from Regional Hubs to the wallet used by most users, of course they are not funding NFTs which all due respect are mostly rugs

Without getting too controversial, I’d encourage the team to focus on the new funding pathways. Seems like a big driver to shift community funding out of the foundation is precisely to mitigate a lot of these inefficiencies.


“Of course they are not funding NFTs which all due respect are mostly rugs”

Bit of a disingenuous comment.

Many that came from Solana commented that one of the things they enjoyed about the Near NFT ecosystem was that it contained so few rugs

NFTs are a great way to launch a project as its easier to build a community.

Look at Near Tinker Union who have built Meteor wallet after first building a launchpad but then pivoting to a wallet…creating the NFT built a dedicated community that allowed them the opportunity of using that community for feedback on ideas and their product which ultimately turned in to a great success

For a successful chain should we not look to support all aspects to increase usage and onboard as many as possible?


Hello studio 171, I would like to hold a Twitter space around growth hacking in the NFT marketplace and invite you to join?? Gather all the smart NFT enthusiasts let’s build on it. I have a strong desire for understanding and more knowledge shared and I’ll do well to invite everyone I know as well.


We need to brjng more eyes to these platforms

There are many people that would love to be more involved in how to make the ecosystem better but its hard to find or know about if you are not a founder or early contributor to one of the main Daos


I am sorry to hear that you have been disheartened after that much efforts. Any people or project tries to add value deserves clear communication, direction and respond. I would like to read your proposal, is there any place where we can access?
Alex Scharrer’s appointment to Head of NFT’s position was a very positive sign for all of us. Unfortunately his role changed in couple of months and no communication was made to NFT actors , we have found out all these at Twitter profile informations.
For the future I would like to know:

  • What is Near’s stand on NFTs ?
  • What is the plan to build a sustainable environment for projects?
  • How and where can NFT actors contribute to efforts and support Near Management to build a sustainable NFT environment

Thank you for your efforts ASAC team!


With regards to the Near Foundation’s 2023 plan, it’s important to note that our conversations with them date back to June of last year and predate the 2023 plan and the NDC. While the top-down approach of building partnerships and onboarding a large number of users is commendable, the bottom-up approach of channelling community initiatives through NDC will pose some hurdles in the immediacy.

Regarding the situation with Creatives DAO, it is unfortunate that the relationship was dropped without any explanation or resolution. To our knowledge there were no outstanding issues, we were all on the same page of working together and defined a relationship that drove value to both parties so you can imagine that It came as a shock to us to find out we were no longer in the picture.

As for the NDC, it is worth noting that new groups will not be able to request funding until v1 and the post-election process, which is still several months away. The reality is there will no longer be a Near NFT Ecosystem by then at our current rate of decline.

Furthermore, a majority of the Top 10 NFT Projects have now turned their focus to build on other chains so they can drive value to their communities and survive. As it doesn’t make commercial sense to mint or build consumer facing tools for a nft ecosystem that is in mass exodus.


the sad reality of the situation is that NFTs on NEAR are dead.


Hey @atrox1382 ,

To further the general cause of a healthy debate, could you please link (or at least properly reference) the source of the screenshot?

1 Like

@Alpar_NEAR, I don’t think most people have trouble identifying the source of the above posted screenshot but here you go: used to give very good stats on NEAR NFTs, the site being down and noone noticing this adds to my point. You can also confirm the figures on who have aggregated data.

The time has come for NF and NEAR leadership to stop making excuses and give some clarity to the ecosystem. Either admit mistakes have been made, accept the current situation and try to improve it or simply admit that NFTs and the native stakeholders don’t play any major role in NEAR strategy long-term.