Currently there is a no prioritisation process in Cardano. The community is not easily able to express their thoughts and opinions or vote on which problems and opportunities are the most important for the ecosystem.
The main way that the community might express themselves currently is through the town halls or X social media platform which allows people to share their thoughts in the form of posts. Although useful a general purpose social media platform is not fit for purpose for gathering, suggesting and voting on important priorities that could help with improving the ecosystem.
Currently the only way that problems and opportunities are shared is through the proposal process itself. This process is currently only suitable for contributors that are going to execute an idea as they must bundle a problem or opportunity with an idea and the people who are executing that idea all into one proposal. This system is not very expressive as it means only contributors who are executing ideas are suggesting priorities and means the process doesn’t help the community with easily endorsing a priority but disapproving of an idea as these processes for priorities and ideas is currently coupled together.
- Lack of community prioritisation - The community is currently not able to express their opinions on what the most important problems and opportunities are in the ecosystem. This limits the ecosystems ability to find out what the wider community currently thinks are the most important priorities. Not being able to see what the community currently is prioritising can result in a lack of ideas that help could help to address those priorities. If contributors are able to see which priorities are most important they will more easily become inspired to identify ideas that could help with addressing those priorities.
- Lack of priority discussion & debate - Not adopting a process that is dedicated to priority setting has resulted in a lack of ongoing discussion and debate around which priorities are the most important in the community. Currently the most adopted location for this type of discussion would be on the X social media platform. This is a general purpose social media platform that is not suitable as an ongoing prioritisation system that supports ongoing discussion and debate. Important priorities can easily be lost and forgotten about without the right systems and processes in place to support the ongoing discussions and community feedback.
Suggestion option #1 - Start discussing a priority process
The Catalyst team should outline their current stance on whether a priority process should or will be introduced into the ecosystem. If the team believes a priority process is important but they don’t intend to develop anything this should be made clear to the community so that the community can respond and experiment themselves as necessary. Any supporting of dissenting view points should be shared by the Catalyst team so the community can engage in the discussions and considerations towards approaches for prioritisation that could be adopted by the ecosystem. The main next step for the Catalyst team would be to document and share their current viewpoints and intentions around a priority process and then invite the community to provide their thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Suggestion option #2 - Have another suggestion
Provide your suggestion and any rationale in the comments below.
Suggestion option #3 - Disagree, this is not necessary
There is no need for a priority process. Provide any rationale in the comments below.
- #1 - Start discussing a priority process
- #2 - Have another suggestion
- #3 - Disagree, this is not necessary
- Disbursement approaches - Disbursement - Disbursement approaches that could be adopted by a funding process. Catalyst currently adopts a fully combined process.
- https://disbursement.treasuries.co/priorities/independent-priority-process - Analysing the advantages and drawbacks of adopting an independent priority process.
- Analysis that discusses the implications of priorities being attached to challenges versus having an independent process separate from funding categories: