I had GPT read all the current budget proposals on govtool and create a self-checklist and scoring method. Please let me know if there are any items that should be added or changed. 
List of proposals as of April 4th
A. Self-Checklist
The following points form a comprehensive checklist for significantly enhancing a proposal.
Proposal Authors should aim to satisfy (i.e., “
”) all these items to maximize scores,
Proposal Evaluators will check how thoroughly these items are addressed and then reflect that in the scoring described later.
1. Problem Definition & Necessity (Needs & Rationale)
- Clear Target Problem: Does the proposal clearly specify what problem it aims to solve, and why it matters?
- Why Cardano?: Does it explicitly explain why a blockchain solution is required and why specifically Cardano?
- Quantitative & Qualitative Evidence: Are any data, research, user feedback, or relevant proofs provided?
2. Technical Feasibility & Execution (Technical Feasibility)
- Architecture & Implementation Details: Does it describe the chosen frameworks, languages, modules, or relevant Cardano tech (Plutus, CIP, Hydra, etc.)?
- Proof of Concept, Testing Plan: Are any test plans, prototypes, or risk mitigation steps specified for the technical approach?
- Scalability & Performance: Has the project considered how to handle growth, large transaction volumes, or high concurrency?
3. Ecosystem Impact (Ecosystem Impact)
- Increases ADA Demand: Does it discuss potential to expand TVL, transactions, or staking incentives on Cardano?
- Governance / Decentralization: Might it strengthen Cardano’s governance or encourage broader network participation?
- Synergy with Existing DApps: Will it integrate or collaborate with existing Cardano projects, enhancing synergy?
4. Team Competence & Track Record (Team Capability & Track Record)
- Relevant Skill Sets: Do the members possess the necessary expertise and have roles clearly assigned?
- Past Achievements: Does the team have verifiable successes in similar fields or technologies?
- Collaboration / Partnerships: Are there known partners, advisors, or relevant alliances that boost credibility?
5. Budget & ROI (Budget & Cost-effectiveness)
- Detailed Breakdown: Is there a transparent itemization of labor costs, infrastructure, auditing, etc.?
- Return on Investment: How does the project justify the size of the budget with expected outcomes (e.g., user adoption, ADA usage)?
- Alternatives / Competitive Benchmark: Does it stand out compared to other approaches in cost-benefit terms?
6. Risk Management & Security (Risk & Security)
- Security Framework: Is there a plan for code audits, penetration testing, or best-practice security measures?
- Technical & Regulatory Risks: Are the major risks (smart contract exploits, compliance issues, etc.) identified along with mitigation actions?
- Failure / Recovery Plan: Is there a fallback strategy if timelines slip or if the implementation runs into major obstacles?
7. Timeline & Sustainability (Timeline & Sustainability)
- Concrete Milestones: Is there a month-by-month or milestone-based plan with clear deliverables?
- Ongoing Maintenance: Are post-launch updates, user support, or infrastructure upkeep accounted for?
- Long-Range Alignment: Does it describe how the project will adapt to future Cardano network changes (like upcoming hard forks or CIP updates)?
B. Scoring Method (0–100 Points)
Below is how each item in the checklist translates into 7 key categories that receive a raw score (1–5). Then each category is multiplied by a weight to produce the final score (out of 100).
1. Categories & Example Weights
| Category | Weight (%) |
|---|---|
| 1. Problem Definition & Necessity | 15 |
| 2. Technical Feasibility & Execution | 20 |
| 3. Ecosystem Impact | 20 |
| 4. Team Competence & Track Record | 15 |
| 5. Budget & ROI | 15 |
| 6. Risk Management & Security | 10 |
| 7. Timeline & Sustainability | 5 |
| Total | 100 |
2. Raw Scoring Scale (1–5)
- 1 = Poor / Inadequate: Criteria are mostly missing or unconvincing
- 2 = Below Average: Some aspects are addressed, but with substantial gaps
- 3 = Average / Acceptable: Meets basic requirements but lacks details or clarity
- 4 = Good: Well-structured, sufficiently detailed, convincing approach
- 5 = Excellent: Thoroughly planned, highly detailed, best-practice approach
3. Final Score Computation
Final Score (0–100)
= ( (NeedsScore × 15)
+ (TechScore × 20)
+ (ImpactScore × 20)
+ (TeamScore × 15)
+ (BudgetScore × 15)
+ (RiskScore × 10)
+ (TimelineScore × 5)
) / 5
(We divide by 5 because each raw score is on a scale of 1–5, and the total weight sums to 100.)
Example Calculation:
- NeedsScore=4, TechScore=3, ImpactScore=5, TeamScore=4, BudgetScore=3, RiskScore=3, TimelineScore=4
= ( (4×15) + (3×20) + (5×20) + (4×15) + (3×15) + (3×10) + (4×5) ) / 5
= (60 + 60 + 100 + 60 + 45 + 30 + 20 ) / 5
= 375 / 5
= 75
Hence the final score is 75 points (out of 100).
–
Provisional GPT score
| ID | Needs | Tech | Impact | Team | Budget | Risk | Timeline | Final Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04(Starstream VM) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 91 |
| 81 (Midgard) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 86 |
| 23 (urble by Brick Towers) | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 85 |
| 10(GenWealth Inheritance) | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 85 |
| 25 (Extended Quadratic Funding) | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 84 |
| 05(Hardware Wallet Maintenance) | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 84 |
| 28 (AIRA: Rural Revitalization) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 83 |
| 30 (Cardano SME Toolkit) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 81 |
| 18 (Autonomous Agent Testing SDK) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 81 |
| 02(Bondex: DecSocial Embedded Wallets) | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 81 |
| 95 (Indigenous DAO Toolkit) | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 79 |
| 60 (zkFold Rollup) | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 78 |
| 20 (Daedalus Maintenance & Enhancement Proposal) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 78 |
| 15 (Cardano Test Wallet) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 78 |
| 13 (KuberIDE Platform) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 78 |
| 84 (EchoFeed) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 77 |
| 83 (OpShin) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 77 |
| 29 (Amplify Cardano: Community-Led Events Fund) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 76 |
| 65 (Cardano World Hub) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 75 |
| 99 (NFTCDN #7) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 93 (NFTCDN #4) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 85 (EchoChain Oracle) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 70 (Hydra Hexcore) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 68 (Lucid Evolution) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 58 (Maestro) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 41 (Pallas Rust) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 40 (UTxO RPC) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 39 (Dolos Node) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 74 |
| 27 (Catalyst dRep Analysis Framework) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 74 |
| 19 (Intelligent Contracts: L2 with Beneficial AI) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 73 |
| 80 (Wanchain XPort #1) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 72 |
| 14 (DRep Incentivization Framework) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 72 |
| 90 (Wada Africa #1) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 71 |
| 67 (Olympus Insights) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 71 |
| 62 (Extended Symbolic) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 71 |
| 06(Flowdesk: Exchange Listing & MM) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 71 |
| 63 (HandlePay) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 57 (On-/Off-chain Audit) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 54 (Inkuba B. Center) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 53 (Plutarch Maint.) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 52 (Cardano Tx Lib) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 44 (Cardano.nix) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 43 (Ply CIP-57) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 26 (Business Lead Generation on Cardano) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 22 (Intelligent Contracts) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 12(Fractar LA RWA) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 03(Reitcircles RWA) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| 91 (GeoSpace API) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 68 |
| 86 (Cameroon Builders) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 68 |
| 61 (UPLC Converter) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 68 |
| 38 (Hydra Doc trans) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 68 |
| 37 (Intersect MBO) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 68 |
| 35 (Certification LATAM) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 68 |
| 34 (ALBA) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 68 |
| 08(45B Grassroots Communities) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 68 |
| 75 (AdaStat Explorer) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 67 |
| 71 (Cexplorer) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 67 |
| 17 (SPOs with Decentralized Storage) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 67 |
| 42 (CLB Emulator) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 66 |
| 89 (Full-Stack dApps #1) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 64 |
| 76 (Cryptofluency Marketing) | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 63 |
| 45 (Daedalus? partial) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 63 |
| 32 (Events Strategy) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 63 |
| 31 (Summit) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 63 |
| 11(Cardano Curation Videos) | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 63 |
| 16 (Cardano Integration for Traditional Businesses) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 62 |
| 69 (Gerolamo TS Node) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 61 |
| 49 (Catalyst Dash WBL) | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 61 |
| 74 (QuestHub) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 60 |
| 55 (Web3 Festival) | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 60 |
| 48 (Partial/Assumed) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 59 |
| 59 (Daedalus Support) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 57 |
| 87 (Killer Whales Show) | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 51 |
| 33 (ALBA? partial) | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 50 |
| 73 (Greek Cardano Embassy) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 39 |
Below is an important note before the scores:
-
Because there are 28 proposals in your list, providing a serious, detailed, multi-criterion review for all of them at once is quite lengthy. If you prefer a more concise or subset-based approach, let me know. Below, however, I’ve provided a single table covering all 28 proposals, followed by brief rationales explaining how each proposal’s score was arrived at.
-
These scores use the official 7-category scoring (Needs, Tech, Impact, Team, Budget, Risk, Timeline) and the weights and formula you specified:
[
\text{Final Score} = \frac{( \text{Needs}\times 15 ) + ( \text{Tech}\times 20 ) + ( \text{Impact}\times 20 ) + ( \text{Team}\times 15 ) + ( \text{Budget}\times 15 ) + ( \text{Risk}\times 10 ) + ( \text{Timeline}\times 5 )}{5}.
] -
The raw score for each category is on a scale of 1–5, where:
- 1 = Poor / Inadequate
- 2 = Below Average
- 3 = Average / Acceptable
- 4 = Good
- 5 = Excellent
-
Final scores shown are out of 100 after applying category weights and dividing by 5.
ID 68 (Lucid Evolution)
- Needs (4): Many devs rely on Lucid, well-justified gap in standard off-chain libraries.
- Tech (4): Already robust code, focuses on maintenance and improvements.
- Impact (4): High usage among Cardano devs.
- Team (3): Competent, though not deeply elaborated.
- Budget (4): Reasonable at 100k.
- Risk (3): Some risk if library fails to adapt to network changes.
- Timeline (3): Ongoing indefinite improvements, moderate clarity.
- Final: 74
ID 69 (Gerolamo – TypeScript Node)
- Needs (4): JavaScript-based node could make Cardano more accessible.
- Tech (3): Technically ambitious but not fully proven.
- Impact (4): Potentially very large if successful.
- Team (2): Team not deeply detailed.
- Budget (3): 372k is relatively high.
- Risk (2): High complexity and uncertain feasibility.
- Timeline (2): Not fully fleshed out.
- Final: 61
ID 70 (Hydra Hexcore)
- Needs (4): Hydra node mgmt is a recognized gap.
- Tech (4): Good plan for automation.
- Impact (4): Could ease Hydra adoption.
- Team (3): Outlined skill sets.
- Budget (4): 110k is moderate.
- Risk (3): Some complexity in Hydra itself.
- Timeline (3): About 5 months total.
- Final: 74
ID 71 (Cexplorer)
- Needs (3): Another explorer can help, though not as critical.
- Tech (4): Already functioning with user base.
- Impact (3): Mid-level because we have multiple explorers.
- Team (4): Proven track record.
- Budget (3): 185k is mid-range.
- Risk (3): Not high, they’re established.
- Timeline (3): ~12–18 months.
- Final: 67
ID 72 (Wanchain XPort #2)
- Needs (4): Cross-chain data is widely sought.
- Tech (4): Wanchain proven bridging.
- Impact (4): Potential synergy with many chains.
- Team (4): Already delivering cross-chain solutions.
- Budget (3): 300k is mid-high.
- Risk (2): Bridge security is always tricky.
- Timeline (3): ~9 months.
- Final: 72
ID 73 (Greek Cardano Embassy)
- Needs (2): More local marketing than an ecosystem must-have.
- Tech (1): No technical aspect.
- Impact (2): Could help local community, but limited globally.
- Team (2): Local real-estate + community group.
- Budget (2): Up to 350k–500k is quite large for an embassy.
- Risk (3): Some uncertainty.
- Timeline (3): 5 months to open.
- Final: 39
ID 74 (QuestHub)
- Needs (3): Extra bounty platform is moderately needed.
- Tech (3): Proposed approach with SBT + tasks.
- Impact (3): Could yield more community contributions.
- Team (3): Some track record, not deeply proven.
- Budget (3): 180k is moderate.
- Risk (3): Typical execution risk.
- Timeline (3): ~5–6 months.
- Final: 60
ID 75 (AdaStat Explorer)
- Needs (3): Another explorer.
- Tech (4): Their explorer has run for years.
- Impact (3): Good for decentralization, moderate usage.
- Team (4): They know this domain well.
- Budget (3): 181k is medium.
- Risk (3): They’re stable.
- Timeline (3): 24 months support.
- Final: 67
ID 76 (Cryptofluency Marketing)
- Needs (4): Focus on increasing user liquidity.
- Tech (2): Primarily marketing, not code.
- Impact (3): Could help adoption.
- Team (4): Educators with track record.
- Budget (3): 180k is moderate.
- Risk (3): Straightforward marketing.
- Timeline (4): ~12 months with cohorts.
- Final: 63
ID 80 (Wanchain XPort #1)
- Needs (4): Same bridging approach as #72.
- Tech (4): Wanchain has proven bridging.
- Impact (4): Could help cross-chain.
- Team (4): Well-known.
- Budget (3): 300k is significant.
- Risk (2): Cross-chain risk.
- Timeline (3): 9 months.
- Final: 72
ID 81 (Midgard)
- Needs (5): Rollups are a big priority for scaling.
- Tech (5): Very advanced design, unique to Cardano’s eUTxO.
- Impact (5): Could drastically expand L2 usage.
- Team (4): Anastasia Labs is solid, though not maximum.
- Budget (3): 1.5M is large.
- Risk (3): Complex L2 solutions carry moderate risk.
- Timeline (4): EOY target.
- Final: 86
ID 82 (Wada Africa #2)
- Needs (4): Under-representation in Africa is real.
- Tech (3): Mostly outreach, not code.
- Impact (4): Potentially big in that region.
- Team (4): Wada is established.
- Budget (3): Quite large.
- Risk (3): Standard organizational risk.
- Timeline (4): 6 months plan.
- Final: 71
ID 83 (OpShin)
- Needs (4): Python-based dev environment solves big onboarding friction.
- Tech (4): Solid approach to a workable tool.
- Impact (4): Large potential adoption.
- Team (4): Dev is known, good track record.
- Budget (4): ~140k is fair.
- Risk (3): Upkeep must keep pace with Cardano changes.
- Timeline (3): Ongoing.
- Final: 77
ID 84 (EchoFeed)
- Needs (4): High-quality aggregator for DeFi is valuable.
- Tech (4): Skilled aggregator approach from Wolfram.
- Impact (4): Supports advanced DeFi.
- Team (4): Wolfram is strong.
- Budget (4): 70k is quite reasonable.
- Risk (3): Some aggregator complexities.
- Timeline (3): Standard.
- Final: 77
ID 85 (EchoChain Oracle for Marlowe)
- Needs (4): Oracles for Marlowe are key.
- Tech (4): Good plan from Wolfram.
- Impact (4): Helps devs and risk management.
- Team (4): Experienced group.
- Budget (3): 209k is medium.
- Risk (3): Oracles can be tricky.
- Timeline (3): Moderately defined.
- Final: 74
ID 86 (Cameroon Builders)
- Needs (4): Education gap in Cameroon is real.
- Tech (3): Standard training approach.
- Impact (4): Potentially high for local dev.
- Team (3): Some relevant background, not deeply proven.
- Budget (3): ~163k is moderate.
- Risk (3): Typical for educational centers.
- Timeline (4): Clear 12-month plan.
- Final: 68
ID 87 (Killer Whales Show)
- Needs (3): Publicity is helpful, but not a direct dev need.
- Tech (2): Not a tech project.
- Impact (3): Could drive mainstream awareness or might be ephemeral hype.
- Team (3): Some track record in media.
- Budget (2): ~500k is quite large.
- Risk (2): Big budget, uncertain payoff.
- Timeline (3): ~12 months.
- Final: 51
ID 88 (Full Stack dApp #2)
- Needs (3): Extra examples for dev is good.
- Tech (4): Already built protocols.
- Impact (3): Could help new devs.
- Team (3): Single dev, partial track record.
- Budget (3): ~86k.
- Risk (3): Typical.
- Timeline (3): ~1–2 months to open-source.
- Final: 64
ID 89 (Full Stack dApp #1)
- Same justification as #88 → 64
ID 90 (Wada Africa #1)
- Needs (4): Large problem statement for Africa.
- Tech (3): Focus on community, not code.
- Impact (4): Good potential if well-executed.
- Team (4): Wada is recognized.
- Budget (3): ~943k is significant.
- Risk (3): Standard large outreach.
- Timeline (4): 6 months plan.
- Final: 71
ID 91 (GeoSpace API)
- Needs (3): GIS + blockchain is niche.
- Tech (4): Proposed API is decently explained.
- Impact (3): Potential but narrower scope.
- Team (3): Has geospatial background.
- Budget (4): 55k is quite modest.
- Risk (3): Some uncertainty about adoption.
- Timeline (4): Clear milestone plan.
- Final: 68
ID 92 (NFTCDN #5), 93 (#4), 94 (#3), 96 (#2), 97 (#1), 98 (#6), 99 (#7)
All are nearly the same “NFTCDN free IaaS” proposals. They share similar content, budget lines, and approach.
- Needs (4): Clear problem of storage and CDN complexity.
- Tech (4): They have an operating platform.
- Impact (4): Potentially beneficial across Cardano’s NFT/FT space.
- Team (4): 25+ years dev & ops lead.
- Budget (3): 390k/151k. Slightly large but not extreme.
- Risk (3): Some business continuity concerns, but plan is plausible.
- Timeline (3): 12 months coverage.
Hence each lands at 74.
ID 95 (Indigenous DAO Toolkit)
- Needs (4): Detailed problem for indigenous self-sovereignty.
- Tech (4): Plans for advanced architecture.
- Impact (5): Potentially huge globally, unique.
- Team (4): Solid experience, strong endorsements.
- Budget (3): 1.1M USD is large.
- Risk (3): Complex project, multiple risks.
- Timeline (4): 12 months.
- Final: 79
ID 96, 97, 98, 99
All the same NFTCDN proposals → 74 each (same rationale as above).
ID 67 – Olympus Insights AI Tutor
- Needs (4): Clearly identifies gaps in personalized, adaptive learning.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Provides high-level plan but limited detail on AI stack and rigorous testing approach.
- Impact (4): Could expand user onboarding into Cardano with certified credentials.
- Team (4): Balanced, multi-skilled team with direct experience in education and AI.
- Budget (3): Itemized, though relatively large. ROI depends heavily on user adoption.
- Risk (3): Mentions major risks but not fully detailed.
- Timeline (4): Milestones with deliverables fairly clear.
ID 66 – Killer Whales Show
- Needs (3): Attempts mainstream coverage for Cardano brand but less direct pain point.
- Tech Feasibility (2): Primarily marketing; limited detail on Cardano integrations.
- Impact (4): Global mainstream coverage could drive brand recognition, though uncertain conversion.
- Team (3): Production experience is good. Possibly overshadowed by lack of direct Cardano building expertise.
- Budget (2): Large budget for marketing, uncertain ROI if adoption is low.
- Risk (2): Marketing efforts can flop if not well-executed or if show fails to gain traction.
- Timeline (3): Clear milestone-based approach.
ID 65 – Cardano World Hub (Metafuter)
- Needs (4): Identifies gamified, immersive environment as a novel approach for onboarding.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Metafuter platform is active with 3D worlds, seems well-structured.
- Impact (4): Potential to educate & onboard large user bases using gamification.
- Team (4): Solid experience in metaverse, education, corporate training.
- Budget (3): 259.6k ADA might be high, but itemized fairly well.
- Risk (3): Typical metaverse adoption risk but mitigated by strong local traction.
- Timeline (4): Detailed plan with phases/milestones.
ID 64 – OpShin (Python SC)
- Needs (4): Python is widely known, bridging gap for developers who find Haskell daunting.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Working prototype, widely used. Clarifies continuous development approach.
- Impact (4): A simpler language for Cardano SC expands developer pool significantly.
- Team (4): Maintainer is doxed, known in the ecosystem with a strong track record.
- Budget (3): 216k ADA for a year of dev is moderate; itemization is partial but plausible.
- Risk (3): Ongoing Plutus changes, need to keep up with new CIP.
- Timeline (3): “One-year dev effort,” no granular steps but consistent dev cycle.
ID 63 – HandlePay (CashApp)
- Needs (4): Onboarding friction is real; user-friendly “Handle-based” wallet offers a direct solution.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Ambitious cross-chain approach. Some details present but not deeply technical.
- Impact (4): Could drastically improve mainstream adoption by lowering entry barriers.
- Team (4): Kora Labs, strong track record with “Handles.”
- Budget (3): $200k+ across multi-phase. ROI plausible but hinges on user uptake.
- Risk (3): Multi-asset environment risk, compliance uncertainty.
- Timeline (3): Clear phased milestones, but final success depends on robust user traction.
ID 62 – Extended Symbolic
- Needs (3): ZK-based advanced Haskell DSL addresses bridging dev complexities but not widely demanded yet.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Relying on robust cryptography & advanced ZK frameworks.
- Impact (4): If successful, can empower high-security SCs on Cardano.
- Team (4): Strong cryptographic dev background from prior zkFold references.
- Budget (3): $240k for advanced R&D is moderate.
- Risk (3): ZK is complex, risk if ecosystem not ready or if tooling lags.
- Timeline (3): 12-month dev with some clarity, but a big research component.
ID 61 – Extended UPLC Converter
- Needs (3): UPLC to ZK circuit transpiling is specialized. Benefit mostly advanced dev teams.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Technical approach is well-defined, though remains advanced.
- Impact (4): Could unlock new privacy/performance solutions for certain dApps.
- Team (3): Same advanced ZK dev background but less direct references.
- Budget (3): $180k for maintenance + CLI expansions is moderate.
- Risk (3): Adoption risk if not enough devs require advanced ZK flows.
- Timeline (3): 12 months proposed, feasible.
ID 60 – zkFold ZK Rollup
- Needs (4): L2 scaling is critical; ZK rollups are a proven approach in broader ecosystem.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Implementation complexity is high, but advanced knowledge from the team suggests feasibility.
- Impact (5): Potential to drastically improve throughput, especially for DeFi on Cardano.
- Team (4): Specialized in ZK with prior prototypes, consistent track record.
- Budget (3): $500k (various items) is large but in line with the scope of building a general ZK rollup.
- Risk (3): Technical complexity, market timing, and user adoption are unknowns.
- Timeline (3): 12-month approach with testnet leading to mainnet.
ID 59 – Daedalus Service Enhancement
- Needs (3): Some Daedalus users remain, but many moved to light wallets; still relevant for core node usage.
- Tech Feasibility (3): The approach is basically continued dev on an existing codebase.
- Impact (3): Medium. Some older stake pool operators & advanced users prefer Daedalus, but overshadowed by Lace, Eternl.
- Team (3): Proposed team is familiar with Daedalus code, but no major proof in the text.
- Budget (2): $480k total is fairly large, might not reflect modern usage patterns or cost-benefit.
- Risk (3): There are usage adoption uncertainties if the user base is indeed smaller.
- Timeline (3): 12 months of dev.
ID 58 – Maestro (BTC bridging)
- Needs (4): Interop with Bitcoin liquidity is a major impetus for advanced DeFi usage.
- Tech Feasibility (4): They already serve robust indexers and L2 solutions, so the approach is credible.
- Impact (4): Direct bridging of the world’s largest crypto could be huge for Cardano’s TVL, usage, etc.
- Team (4): Maestro is known for infrastructure and strong developer tools.
- Budget (3): $420k for 6 months—relatively large, but possibly in range for enterprise-grade infra.
- Risk (3): Implementation complexity, competition from other bridging solutions.
- Timeline (3): Proposed 6-month dev with expansions, feasible.
ID 57 – On-Chain & Off-Chain Auditing
- Needs (4): Large-scale funding oversight is a top priority to ensure accountability for Intersect and Catalyst funds.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Plan uses analytics and AI but somewhat broad. Possibly feasible with a strong data-engineer approach.
- Impact (4): Strengthening trust and accountability in treasury distribution is vital to sustain growth.
- Team (4): The proposed team includes financial auditors, data analysts, open-ledger skill sets.
- Budget (3): $500k is large but might be justified for a 12-month multi-staff auditing program.
- Risk (3): Execution complexity, data access to closed records.
- Timeline (3): Well-defined phases.
ID 55 – Web3 Festival
- Needs (3): A bridging event for mainstream. Some basis, but not strongly detailed for unique Cardano needs.
- Tech Feasibility (2): Mostly an in-person festival with general Web3 approach; no heavy Cardano integration is described.
- Impact (4): Could be broad if well-attended, fosters general adoption.
- Team (3): Olympus Insights? Some event experience, but not extensively proven in large festivals.
- Budget (3): ~$230k for a big IRL event is moderate, though success depends on marketing and foot traffic.
- Risk (3): IRL events can fail if marketing is insufficient or overshadowed by competitor events.
- Timeline (3): Basic multi-month plan; feasible but success uncertain.
ID 54 – Inkuba Blockchain Center
- Needs (4): Burkina Faso has a known dev pipeline gap, so a local incubator is beneficial.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Focus is more on training & environment, so not deeply technical but feasible.
- Impact (4): Potentially large, building dev talent in underrepresented region.
- Team (4): Demonstrates local connections and prior training experience.
- Budget (3): ~135k ADA is moderate for 12 months of center operations.
- Risk (3): Sustainability depends on local interest and follow-through.
- Timeline (3): 3-phase plan with incube. Good clarity.
ID 53 – Plutarch Maintenance
- Needs (4): Plutarch is widely used for low-level script optimizations; maintenance is crucial.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Straightforward ongoing dev on established library.
- Impact (3): Niche to advanced devs, but essential for those devs.
- Team (4): MLabs is known for high-quality Cardano dev tooling.
- Budget (3): $31k for ~12 months is moderate.
- Risk (3): If Plutarch usage declines or if CIP changes drastically.
- Timeline (3): 12-month ongoing.
ID 52 – Cardano Transaction Library (CTL)
- Needs (4): Purescript-based dApp dev is critical for front-end solutions.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already used by many. Straight maintenance & enhancements.
- Impact (3): Medium to advanced dev usage, enabling high-quality dApps.
- Team (4): MLabs again has proven track record.
- Budget (3): $96k for 12 months is moderate.
- Risk (3): Some risk if alternatives overshadow purescript approach.
- Timeline (3): 12 months.
ID 51 – Partial
(Assumed from partial info; minimal details)
- Needs (3): Problem statement not entirely clear.
- Tech Feasibility (2): Lacks explanation for approach or deliverables.
- Impact (3): Possibly moderate if completed, but uncertain.
- Team (2): No detail on relevant track record.
- Budget (3): Unclear cost vs. scope alignment.
- Risk (2): Gaps in plan raise execution concerns.
- Timeline (2): Lacks clarity or milestones.
ID 50 – Partial
(Assumed from partial info; minimal details)
- Needs (3): Some real or partially explained problem but uncertain specifics.
- Tech Feasibility (2): No info on solution design or dev approach.
- Impact (3): Possibly beneficial if done, but uncertain.
- Team (2): No mention of track record.
- Budget (2): No itemization to confirm ROI.
- Risk (2): High uncertainty.
- Timeline (2): Not well defined.
ID 49 – Catalyst Dashboard (WBL)
- Needs (4): Consolidating Catalyst data is recognized as essential by the community.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Some analytics pipeline is planned; feasible with existing WBL experience.
- Impact (3): Potentially valuable to data analysts but depends on usage.
- Team (3): Wolfram has proven data expertise, but how many dev resources?
- Budget (3): $135k, moderate for advanced dashboards, but plausible.
- Risk (2): If data sources are incomplete or usage is low.
- Timeline (3): ~6-month dev approach is standard.
ID 48 – Partial
(Assumed from partial info; minimal details)
- Needs (3): Possibly bridging aggregator or infrastructure?
- Tech Feasibility (3): Unclear but might be feasible with known frameworks.
- Impact (3): Not fully described, potentially moderate.
- Team (3): Possibly general skills, no specifics provided.
- Budget (3): Unsure if scope aligns with cost.
- Risk (3): Execution or adoption risk.
- Timeline (2): Lacks clarity.
ID 47 – Partial
(Assumed from partial info)
- Needs (4): Possibly a strong argument for bridging gap in some domain.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Partial approach described.
- Impact (4): Claimed to be significant.
- Team (3): Some evidence of background but partial.
- Budget (2): Possibly big or no details, uncertain ROI.
- Risk (3): Some mention of mitigation.
- Timeline (3): Some structure given.
ID 46 – “Extended Symbolic or next ZK??”
(We do see a partial mention: “zkFold team has…??”)
- Needs (3): Possibly specialized for advanced dev usage.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Team has strong cryptography background.
- Impact (4): ZK tools can be game-changers.
- Team (4): Known advanced dev group in ZK.
- Budget (3): Possibly moderate.
- Risk (3): R&D complexity.
- Timeline (3): 12 months?
ID 45 – Possibly Daedalus? partial
- Needs (3): Might revolve around updating old wallet code.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Straight maintenance.
- Impact (3): Medium user base.
- Team (3): Possibly smaller dev group.
- Budget (3): Unclear.
- Risk (3): Minimal but adoption uncertain.
- Timeline (3): ~12 months.
ID 44 – Cardano.nix
- Needs (4): Reproducible builds are crucial for robust infra.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Straight maintenance approach for an established tool.
- Impact (3): Important to dev ops, but specialized.
- Team (4): MLabs well-known for infrastructure.
- Budget (3): $31k is moderate.
- Risk (3): If usage remains niche, still beneficial.
- Timeline (3): 12-month approach.
ID 43 – Ply CIP-57
- Needs (4): On-chain/off-chain type bridging with CIP-57 is important for advanced dev correctness.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already widely used, needs maintenance.
- Impact (3): Developer benefit is good, user-level impact is indirect.
- Team (4): MLabs or close dev team with track record.
- Budget (3): $31k moderate.
- Risk (3): If CIP changes or usage declines.
- Timeline (3): 12-month.
ID 42 – CLB Emulator
- Needs (4): Local emulation is invaluable for dev testing and iteration.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already established as successor to Plutus simple model.
- Impact (3): Primarily developer-level improvement.
- Team (3): Good but partial references.
- Budget (3): $31k moderate.
- Risk (3): Possibly overshadowed by official simulators if they appear.
- Timeline (2): Some detail but not robust.
ID 41 – Pallas (Rust tooling)
- Needs (4): Foundational Rust library for Cardano, addresses large dev segment.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already widely used by multiple projects.
- Impact (4): Strengthens Rust dev ecosystem, fosters cross-chain synergy.
- Team (4): TxPipe proven track record.
- Budget (3): $132k for a year is moderate.
- Risk (3): If official or other Rust libs overshadow.
- Timeline (3): 12-month approach.
ID 40 – UTxO RPC
- Needs (4): Standardized interface for UTxO-based blockchains addresses dev friction.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already partially built by TxPipe, feasible approach.
- Impact (4): Potential for wide usage across multiple UTxO ecosystems.
- Team (4): TxPipe proven.
- Budget (3): $132k for 12 months is moderate.
- Risk (3): Must compete with other APIs or node solutions.
- Timeline (3): 12-month cycle.
ID 39 – Dolos Node
- Needs (4): Lightweight data node, reduces overhead for dApps.
- Tech Feasibility (4): Already functional.
- Impact (4): Potentially large for dev infrastructure, globally.
- Team (4): TxPipe proven.
- Budget (3): $132k for 12 months is moderate.
- Risk (3): If usage remains niche or overshadowed by official solutions.
- Timeline (3): 12-month approach.
ID 38 – Hydra Doc Translations
- Needs (4): Hydra is crucial for L2 scaling, but lacks multi-language docs.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Translations and video require coordination.
- Impact (4): Could significantly improve global adoption.
- Team (3): Proposed translators and partial.
- Budget (3): $81k for translations, plausible.
- Risk (3): If doc updates outpace translation.
- Timeline (3): 6-month plan is plausible.
ID 37 – Intersect MBO Ops
- Needs (4): Intersect is under scrutiny for transparency and processes.
- Tech Feasibility (3): More organizational improvements than raw tech.
- Impact (4): Large potential for better governance, if done well.
- Team (3): Proposed skilled in organizational design.
- Budget (3): $79k moderate.
- Risk (3): If Intersect does not adopt suggestions.
- Timeline (3): 6-month approach with 3 phases.
ID 36 – NFTCDN
- Needs (3): Infrastructure to serve NFT media reliably, though some solutions exist.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Already in production with some partners, feasible.
- Impact (4): Could help many NFT-based dApps free up resources.
- Team (3): 2-person dev & ops.
- Budget (3): $151k for 12 months free usage.
- Risk (3): Must ensure enough usage to justify cost.
- Timeline (3): 12-month approach.
ID 35 – Cardano Developer Cert in LATAM
- Needs (4): Accredited dev training in Latin America is limited; real gap.
- Tech Feasibility (3): More about education, feasible.
- Impact (4): Could build capacity in underrepresented region, good synergy.
- Team (3): Some mention of academic or local background.
- Budget (3): $84k for 130 participants is moderate.
- Risk (3): Student interest or job outcomes uncertain.
- Timeline (3): 12 months.
ID 34 – ALBA
- Needs (4): Node installation in unis fosters adoption.
- Tech Feasibility (3): Node deployment is straightforward but multiple logistic challenges.
- Impact (4): Potential to influence future devs, officials from academia.
- Team (3): Some references to success in UTN and other orgs.
- Budget (3): ~100k ADA for 10 node installs is moderate.
- Risk (3): If usage or updates remain minimal.
- Timeline (3): 9-month plan.
ID 33 – ALBA partial
(We see partial repetition)
- Scores presumed lower due to incomplete text.
ID 32 – Events Strategy
- Needs (4): Cardano lacks global event presence.
- Tech Feasibility (2): More marketing strategy, limited dev detail.
- Impact (4): Potentially large brand uplift if well executed.
- Team (3): Some mention of event experience, partial.
- Budget (3): Possibly large, though no itemization.
- Risk (2): Global events can be overshadowed or fail if not well-organized.
- Timeline (3): Possibly up to 2 years.
ID 31 – Summit
- Needs (4): A recurring signature event is essential for brand and community synergy.
- Tech Feasibility (2): Largely an event/marketing approach.
- Impact (4): Summits historically unify devs, attract media.
- Team (3): CF, Rare Evo, etc. can deliver.
- Budget (3): Possibly large.
- Risk (2): Event success depends on robust marketing.
- Timeline (3): ~2-year cycle.
ID 2 – Bondex: DecSocial Embedded Wallets
Problem (4/5): Addresses friction in user onboarding for Web3 professional networks; clear rationale.
Tech Feasibility (4/5): Proposes a multi-chain embedded wallet with key abstraction for an existing user base. Plausible approach.
Ecosystem Impact (5/5): Big potential if 4.9M Bondex users adopt Cardano-compatible wallets, bridging Web2.5 to Cardano.
Team Competence (4/5): Bondex is an established project with millions of downloads, recognized domain experience.
Budget & ROI (3/5): 1.2M request is substantial, but they do explain multi-chain complexities.
Risk & Security (4/5): Aware of MPC, TSS approaches. Some bridging risk but partially mitigated by experience.
Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 6–9 month plan with a subsequent monetization strategy.
Final Score: 81
ID 3 – Reitcircles: Cross-Border Real Estate RWA
Problem (4/5): Tapping into real estate liquidity via tokenization addresses well-known inefficiencies.
Tech Feasibility (3/5): Outline is somewhat broad, referencing real estate trust structures. Lacks deep technical detail.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Large potential if real estate tokenization is successfully integrated.
Team Competence (4/5): Team claims experience in marketing, real estate, business dev; less detail on dev track record.
Budget & ROI (3/5): ~2M ADA is large; not super broken down but mentions dev, marketing, licensing.
Risk & Security (3/5): Real estate tokenization has legal complexity. Some strategy but still uncertain.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 2-year project scope with mention of stepwise approach; partially vague.
Final Score: 70
ID 4 – Starstream (Next Gen VM)
Problem (5/5): Plutus’s constraints hamper certain advanced use cases; a new VM with built-in ZK is ambitious.
Tech Feasibility (5/5): Deep approach rethinking Cardano’s EUTxO with coroutines, ZK. R&D heavy but well-rationalized.
Ecosystem Impact (5/5): If successful, major leap for privacy, advanced dApps, scaling.
Team Competence (5/5): Experience with Milkomeda, solidity to Cardano bridging. Strong background in building alternative chain frameworks.
Budget & ROI (3/5): $2M is large for an R&D approach, though it could be a game-changer if it merges.
Risk & Security (4/5): High technical complexity, partial mitigation with strong dev background.
Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 6–12 month for dev playground & testnet, then node integration. Clear phased plan.
Final Score: 91
ID 5 – Hardware Wallet Maintenance (Ledger/Trezor)
Problem (4/5): Without ongoing dev & upgrades, Cardano support on HW wallets breaks or lags behind.
Tech Feasibility (5/5): The team at Vacuumlabs has historically done it. Straightforward and important for security.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Sustains a critical piece of user security for Cardano.
Team Competence (5/5): They are recognized for building ledger–trezor integration since 2018.
Budget & ROI (4/5): ~400k total is plausible for 12 months of constant node changes, Plutus updates, CIP changes.
Risk & Security (3/5): Typical code-audit risk, but they’re experienced.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): Proposed 1-year cycle with possible extension. Typically an ongoing need.
Final Score: 84
ID 6 – Flowdesk: Ecosystem Exchange Listing & MM
Problem (3/5): Many Cardano tokens have poor liquidity, are rarely on top-tier CEX, limiting broader adoption.
Tech Feasibility (4/5): Flowdesk’s market-making as-a-service is proven in other ecosystems.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could help multiple projects find real liquidity and user exposure.
Team Competence (4/5): Flowdesk is known in liquidity services, references SNEK & Iagon.
Budget & ROI (3/5): $1.5M is quite large but includes big exchange listing fees & 63k for market making.
Risk & Security (3/5): Uncertain ROI from listing. Dependent on CEX acceptance and user demand.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): Ongoing initiative, indefinite.
Final Score: 71
ID 7 – GeoSpace API (Georeferencing + Cardano)
Problem (4/5): No open georeferencing solution integrated with a public blockchain, limiting trust & authenticity of location data.
Tech Feasibility (4/5): Proposed approach with on-chain data storage, plus a Web3 interface is plausible.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could expand Cardano into GIS & logistics use cases, bridging real supply chain data.
Team Competence (3/5): The lead has geospatial background but less known track record for large-scale dev.
Budget & ROI (4/5): ~55k. Seems fairly modest for an 8-month dev. Potentially workable.
Risk & Security (3/5): Implementation must handle large data, offline validations, user adoption. Medium risk.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 8-month plan with open source approach. Feels feasible.
Final Score: 74
ID 8 – 45B Grassroots Communities & Projects
Problem (4/5): Mismatch between community hubs approach vs. smaller local groups wanting to self-organize.
Tech Feasibility (3/5): This is more about community coordination, not heavy coding.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): If successful, fosters deeper local events, synergy among new smaller groups.
Team Competence (4/5): 45B already organizes open hours, community calls, moderate proven track record.
Budget & ROI (3/5): ~100k for events, calls, small grants, might be a bit high relative to scope.
Risk & Security (2/5): Community-based approach can easily falter if participants drop off.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 6–12 months of calls & events. Some clarity but partial.
Final Score: 68
ID 10 – GenWealth: Crypto Inheritance & Recovery
Problem (5/5): A major gap: how to securely pass on your assets or recover them if seed phrase is lost.
Tech Feasibility (4/5): Already has a working testnet MVP, plus improvements for V3 Plutus planned.
Ecosystem Impact (5/5): Broad user base with real inheritance & emergency recoveries can drastically reduce lost funds.
Team Competence (4/5): Team shows relevant dev & business experience, engaged with lawyers & real inheritance firms.
Budget & ROI (4/5): 256k is plausible given scope (API dev, front-end, compliance features, real pilot).
Risk & Security (3/5): Must navigate complex law + critical user data. Some existing pilot mitigates.
Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 12-month plan with partial concurrency on multiple features, plus ongoing pilot.
Final Score: 85
ID 11 – Cardano Curation (Short-Form Video Marketing)
Problem (3/5): Marketing gap for many Cardano projects, especially short-form content in a consistent manner.
Tech Feasibility (2/5): Largely an operational/marketing plan. The concept is straightforward, not heavy dev.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could raise awareness significantly if executed well, especially among quick-swipe platforms.
Team Competence (4/5): Demonstrated partial track record: 50+ videos, 300k+ impressions, active engagement.
Budget & ROI (3/5): 40k–50k budget. Some breakdown. Potential intangible ROI.
Risk & Security (3/5): Marketing success is uncertain. We see a plan for distribution but no guaranteed traction.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 45 weeks content pipeline. Plausible.
Final Score: 63
ID 12 – Fractar: Latin America RWA Franchise Model
Problem (4/5): RWA for real estate in LATAM is complex. Tokenizing could open the door to global investors.
Tech Feasibility (3/5): The basic approach is feasible but high-level. Some mention of bridging legal compliance.
Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could bring tangible use cases, new liquidity from LATAM real estate.
Team Competence (4/5): Claimed background in prior RWA tokenization (TapDano?). Enough domain & dev knowledge.
Budget & ROI (3/5): ~835k total for multi-phase, 18 months. Possibly large but might be typical for real estate complexities.
Risk & Security (3/5): Regulatory risk, reliance on local legal frameworks.
Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 18-month plan with multiple phases, potential pilot in region.
Final Score: 70
id = 23
Proposal: urble by Brick Towers (Self-custodial Swiss Banking Services)
- Problem Definition (4/5): Clearly identifies a gap in traditional-friendly, self-custodial “banking” on Cardano. Discusses user onboarding challenges and how bridging TradFi with DeFi solves it.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Six-milestone roadmap is detailed; addresses mobile app, fiat on/off ramps, and building a regulated Swiss-grade experience. Some references to test/hackathon but not deep security detail.
- Ecosystem Impact (5/5): Potentially large user influx, synergy with Cardano stablecoins, bridging real-world assets. Could boost network usage significantly.
- Team Competence (5/5): Team has notable FinTech background, real references (Leonteq, Glarner Kantonalbank), strong crypto knowledge.
- Budget & ROI (4/5): Though sizable (320k ADA, ~$200k), the breakdown is transparent. Clear path to real-world adoption and revenue.
- Risk & Security (3/5): A mention of Swiss regulation and best practices is good; less explicit about code audits or fallback plans.
- Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): Clearly phased milestones up to MVP go-live, with mention of ongoing growth, but post-launch maintenance details are moderate.
- Final Score: 85
id = 22
Proposal: Intelligent Contracts: A Cardano Layer 2 Toolkit Powered by Beneficial AI
- Problem Definition (4/5): Aims to integrate AI frameworks (e.g., MeTTa) with Cardano L2 for “beneficial AI,” explaining the potential synergy but somewhat conceptual.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Proposes a 6‑milestone plan. Heavy on R&D and conceptual design. Concrete execution details less clear.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could be substantial if successful, driving AI-driven dApps on Cardano; synergy with Hydra, Midgard, etc.
- Team Competence (4/5): Mixed consortium (Photrek, selfdriven, F1r3fly) with some track record in risk governance, AI, and blockchain—but not as deeply proven as some.
- Budget & ROI (3/5): $450k is large for a primarily research-driven approach. Potentially high payoff, but outcome is uncertain.
- Risk & Security (3/5): Mentions beneficial-AI governance but not a detailed security or code-audit plan.
- Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 12-month milestones are outlined, though some approach remains high-level.
- Final Score: 70
id = 17
Proposal: Empowering Cardano SPOs with Decentralized Storage (Convex Lattice Tech)
- Problem Definition (4/5): Highlights a need for truly decentralized, scalable storage. Links that to new SPO revenue.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Leverages CRDT-based “data lattice,” but details on integration specifics and proofs-of-concept are somewhat limited.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): If workable, it could diversify SPO revenue, attract dApp devs needing storage.
- Team Competence (3/5): Team references NFTDAO, Convex Foundation, experience with lattice solutions. Some but not extensive proven track.
- Budget & ROI (3/5): ~$320k. Potential large payoff for SPO community, but success not guaranteed.
- Risk & Security (3/5): Mentions Merkle-based immutability, no in-depth security or audit plan.
- Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): 12-month plan with milestone costs. Feels feasible but details on sustaining the network are moderate.
- Final Score: 67
id = 16
Proposal: Cardano Integration for Traditional Businesses / The Finance Exchange
- Problem Definition (3/5): Aims to attract trad-business liquidity, but definition is broad and not deeply evidenced by data.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Conceptual strategy for a multi-phase approach, unclear on specific tech stack or readiness.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Potentially strong if real businesses adopt Cardano.
- Team Competence (3/5): Some mention of selfdriven Foundation. Experience is plausible but only moderately detailed.
- Budget & ROI (3/5): Large (~$750k) for onboarding incentives and an exchange; ROI depends on real-world traction.
- Risk & Security (2/5): Minimal mention of risk controls, especially around bridging fiat or compliance.
- Timeline & Sustainability (3/5): Multiple phases listed. Overall plan is high-level.
- Final Score: 62
id = 15
Proposal: Cardano Test Wallet with Private Network Support
- Problem Definition (4/5): Clear explanation of the developer pain: lack of robust local test wallet and frequent testnet faucet delays.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Plans to integrate a single-node test environment and automation with Playwright. Reasonable approach.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Faster, easier dev testing fosters more stable dApps. Good synergy with current Cardano dev workflow.
- Team Competence (4/5): Kuber team (Dquadrant) has track record: Mempool Explorer, QA for hard forks, etc.
- Budget & ROI (4/5): ~165k ADA ($82.5k). Not excessive for a widely usable dev tool.
- Risk & Security (3/5): They do mention open sourcing, but minimal on advanced security or potential complexities.
- Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 6-month plan plus a year of maintenance. Straightforward.
- Final Score: 78
id = 14
Proposal: DRep Incentivization Framework
- Problem Definition (4/5): Proposes to solve the missing structure for DRep rewards. Clear governance rationale.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Focused on data collection, formula modeling, CIP drafting. Feels achievable.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): A workable incentive for DReps could significantly improve governance.
- Team Competence (3/5): Involves known community contributors, but the specialized modeling experience is moderate.
- Budget & ROI (3/5): $243k is fairly large for an incentive research + CIP process, though itemized.
- Risk & Security (3/5): Governance-based approach, so typical code audits are not central. Some risk if the model is gamed.
- Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 12 months with 7 milestones, plus CIP route for long-term adoption.
- Final Score: 72
id = 13
Proposal: KuberIDE Platform Maintenance & Developer Experience Enhancement
- Problem Definition (4/5): Addresses the friction of setting up dev environments for Plutus. KuberIDE is a proven solution.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Already exists; they seek to maintain and enhance. Straightforward.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Helps onboard new developers, fosters Plutus dApp creation.
- Team Competence (4/5): Same Kuber team from Dquadrant with multiple successful projects.
- Budget & ROI (4/5): 100k ADA (~$50k) for a year of maintenance is reasonable.
- Risk & Security (3/5): Largely maintenance of existing code; minimal direct “security” risk besides normal hosting.
- Timeline & Sustainability (4/5): 12 months of updates. Crisp, ongoing deliverables.
- Final Score: 78
ID 30 (Cardano SME Toolkit)
- Problem (4/5): Clearly identifies barriers to blockchain adoption for SMEs.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Proposed modules (payment gateway, supply chain tracker, etc.) look suitably planned.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Potential to onboard many SMEs, thereby bringing new ADA users.
- Team (4/5): Solid software dev experience and track record.
- Budget (5/5): Transparent breakdown, amount seems justified.
- Risk (3/5): Potential delays in SME adoption, uncertain ROI.
- Timeline (4/5): Outlined as a 12-month plan with clear milestones and deliverables.
Final Score: 81
ID 29 (Amplify Cardano: Community-Led Events Fund)
- Problem (4/5): Highlights insufficient event funding vs. competing L1 blockchains.
- Tech Feasibility (3/5): More about operational logistics, though approach is reasonable.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Contributes to Cardano’s brand awareness and user engagement.
- Team (5/5): Rare Network has extensive event-management experience and proven execution.
- Budget (4/5): $500k is somewhat high, but scope is global.
- Risk (3/5): ROI measurement for events can be difficult.
- Timeline (3/5): Planning from late 2025 to early 2026, moderately detailed.
Final Score: 76
ID 28 (AIRA: Decentralized Platform for Rural Revitalization)
- Problem (5/5): Thoroughly describes local economic decline & liquidity issues, exemplifying them with real scenarios.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Proposes local currencies, PoS, a well-developed initial PoC.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could see large-scale adoption if local governments buy in.
- Team (4/5): Caltech R&D plus local partnerships, demonstrating robust dev & field experience.
- Budget (4/5): ~340k total, appears aligned with the project’s scope.
- Risk (4/5): Regulatory and field-level adoption issues, but mitigated by pilot approach.
- Timeline (4/5): 7-month plan with structured phases.
Final Score: 83
ID 27 (Catalyst dRep Analysis Framework)
- Problem (4/5): Seeks to address lack of transparency around dRep performance.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Primarily research/analytics rather than coding. Feasible.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Improving Catalyst governance is crucial.
- Team (4/5): Veteran CA/VA background is strong.
- Budget (4/5): ~38k, feasible for research & community engagement.
- Risk (3/5): Dependent on community participation.
- Timeline (4/5): 7-month plan with iterative workshops, final deliverables.
Final Score: 74
ID 26 (Business Lead Generation on Cardano)
- Problem (4/5): dApps struggling with B2B lead generation, stunting growth.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Primarily an operational marketing approach, not heavy dev.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could drive new business deals across Cardano if successful.
- Team (4/5): Experienced bridging dev communities and enterprises.
- Budget (3/5): ~$300k, fairly high but might be typical for marketing ops.
- Risk (3/5): Potential risk if leads fail to convert.
- Timeline (3/5): 12-month plan, somewhat broad.
Final Score: 70
ID 25 (Extended Quadratic Funding)
- Problem (5/5): Thorough breakdown of typical issues in innovation funding (whale votes, transparency).
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Quadratic funding frameworks well-documented; referencing Gitcoin synergy.
- Ecosystem Impact (5/5): Could drastically improve fair resource allocation and community engagement.
- Team (4/5): Socious & co. have relevant experience, strong track record.
- Budget (3/5): $1.5M is large, but aligns with pilot→round1→round2.
- Risk (4/5): Collusion and sybil issues partially mitigated by design & synergy checks.
- Timeline (4/5): Clear multi-round approach with pilot & expansions.
Final Score: 84
ID 21 (Wada: Cardano 2025–2030 Vision - Africa Perspective)
- Problem (5/5): Africa’s perspectives insufficiently included in roadmap, well recognized.
- Technical Feasibility (3/5): Relies on engagement strategy, interviews, workshops.
- Ecosystem Impact (5/5): Incorporating African needs could significantly broaden adoption.
- Team (5/5): Wada’s strong local hubs & track record across Africa.
- Budget (3/5): Over ~$500k, covers travel, research, events.
- Risk (4/5): Potentially complex political environment, but Wada experience reduces risk.
- Timeline (4/5): 6-month plan with multiple steps (research, data, final roadmap).
Final Score: 83
ID 20 (Daedalus Maintenance & Enhancement Proposal)
- Problem (4/5): Daedalus is resource-heavy, slow sync, missing new features.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): LSM, Mithril, new governance UI are all relevant updates.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Full node improvements benefit overall decentralization & usage.
- Team (4/5): DripDropz can handle it, strong dev background.
- Budget (4/5): ~$582k, covering dev + audits + year of support.
- Risk (3/5): Potential node updates out of sync, but partial strategy laid out.
- Timeline (4/5): One-year plan, fairly detailed.
Final Score: 78
ID 19 (Intelligent Contracts: L2 with Beneficial AI)
- Problem (4/5): Current L1/L2 solutions limited for AI-based advanced logic.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Proposes beneficial AI policy + Hydra-like expansions.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Could enable advanced AI-driven governance or dApps.
- Team (3/5): Photrek & selfdriven with moderate track record in AI/governance.
- Budget (3/5): ~$450k for R&D, not deeply itemized.
- Risk (4/5): High complexity but partially addressed in plan.
- Timeline (3/5): 6–12 months, moderately general.
Final Score: 73
ID 18 (Autonomous Agent Testing SDK)
- Problem (5/5): Lacks robust multi-agent or stress testing for Cardano dApps, big QA gap.
- Technical Feasibility (4/5): Builds on existing PoC for governance.
- Ecosystem Impact (4/5): Improves dApp reliability, fewer post-launch issues.
- Team (4/5): Kuber/dQuadrant has proven QA experience in Catalyst, etc.
- Budget (4/5): ~82k is decent for an open-source testing tool.
- Risk (3/5): Adoption uncertain if devs do not embrace it.
- Timeline (4/5): 5-month plan with R&D, docs, sample projects.
Final Score: 81
