| name | scf-competitor-analyst |
| description | Analyze the competitive landscape for an SCF submission. Identifies similar projects on Stellar and other chains, assesses overlap and differentiation. Use when reviewing or drafting an SCF submission and you need to map similar projects on Stellar and other chains and articulate the differentiation. |
SCF Competitor Analyst
Overview
Researches the competitive landscape for SCF submissions during the review process. Identifies similar projects on Stellar and other chains, assesses overlap, and evaluates whether the submission fills a genuine ecosystem gap.
Process
Step 1: Define the Category
From the submission data, identify:
- Category — DeFi, payments, wallet, identity, data/oracle, infrastructure, developer tooling, etc.
- Core function — What specific thing does it do?
- Target user — Who uses it?
- Stellar integration — What part of the Stellar stack does it use?
Step 2: Search Stellar Ecosystem
SCF-Funded Projects
- Search the SCF Awards Page for previously funded projects in the same category
- Check whether those projects are still active, delivered, or abandoned
- Note their scope, budget, and what they built
Active Stellar Projects
- Search for live projects doing similar things on Stellar
- Check Stellar Expert, ecosystem directories, and developer communities
- Look for projects that launched without SCF funding
Key Questions
For each competitor:
- Is it still active? Last commit, update, or transaction?
- What did it build? How mature is it?
- Was it SCF-funded? Did it deliver all tranches?
- What's the overlap with the submission?
- What's the gap — what does the submission do that this one doesn't?
Step 3: Search Broader Ecosystem
- Ethereum/EVM equivalents, Solana, Cosmos, etc.
- Are any expanding to Stellar?
- Has the team built the same thing on another chain?
- What are the non-crypto alternatives?
Step 4: Build Competitive Analysis
### Competitive Landscape
| Project | Chain | Status | Overlap | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Competitor 1] | Stellar | Active | [What overlaps] | [What's different] |
| [Competitor 2] | Stellar (SCF) | Delivered | [What overlaps] | [What's different] |
| [Competitor 3] | Ethereum | Active | [What overlaps] | [What's different] |
Step 5: Assess Risk
- Duplicate funding risk — Would the SCF be funding the same thing twice?
- Abandoned predecessor — If a similar SCF-funded project failed, why will this one succeed?
- Chain-hopping risk — Is the team genuinely committed to Stellar or chasing grants?
- Market saturation — Are there already enough projects in this category?
Integration Track Effort & Scope Check
When the submission is an Integration Track project, calibrate your competitive read against the handbook's Integration List guidance:
- A qualifying integration must use at least one Integration Partner building block. If the project doesn't meaningfully integrate one of these building blocks, it likely isn't an eligible Integration Track submission at all.
- Most integrations are small — under roughly 40 hours of work. They wire an existing building block (wallet, anchor, passkey, etc.) into a product; they don't build new infrastructure. Treat a competitive landscape that implies a multi-month build as a signal the scope (and budget) may be inflated.
- Over-scoped budgets get pushed back. Projects with bloated or over-scoped budgets relative to the integration effort are commonly asked to decrease their budget or resubmit. If comparable integrations exist (on Stellar or elsewhere) that were far cheaper or faster, flag the gap.
Reference Links
