Category Scoping, Catalyst Community Discussion

Governance Project Catalyst
1

Before Fund 10, it was proposed that categories should be discussed and potentially reshaped by the community with the goal of having workable categories for use in Fund 11. I read about this in a Twitter post in March. Category scoping came up in Town Hall two weeks ago and again in a community members Twitter Space on Friday. I haven’t seen anything further on it though and thought some dialogue within the community to start the thinking process would be good.

Screenshot_catscope

Here’s the break down of new categories and the examples that were provided.

Potential areas to discuss could include:

Have we correctly assigned challenges into the new categories? Have we captured all the use cases in these categories or does anyone have an example otherwise?

Should categories be split based on budget, big/little cat, what is the budget threshold for them respectively? Should sub categories be a thing (of the past)?

Budget for the categories themselves?

What should be in scope for each, what is excluded from those scopes?

Is there a need for discussion on approved but unfunded proposals from the prior funding round?

Incorrect categories, what happens if someone puts their proposal in the wrong bucket? Who addresses that and how? Any recourse for the proposer if they disagree?

Proposal review process, should impact, feasibility, and value for money still be assessed by reviewers? Bot and AI detection?Analysis for duplicate proposals?

Voting process. Downvotes in all categories, some or none?

Proposal completion verification, payment process, etc

Please share your thoughts :slight_smile:

References:
Daniel’s March Twitter post: https://twitter.com/danny_cryptofay/status/1641199792452763649?s=20
Town Hall on YouTube (~0:36:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f7v0x6xal0&t=2228s
STOIC Rhys’ Twitter Space (~0:37:00): https://twitter.com/StoicPool/status/1697673509973942426
Fund 10 Parameters: Fund10 parameters - Project Catalyst - Knowledge Base

5 Likes
2

Hi, I think this is am important discussion. I also have my own opinions about what categories catalyst should have and how they should be shaped.

BUT I think it is not a good time to discuss this. Currently Fund10 voting is on everybody’s mind. Let us pick this up once that finishes!

1 Like
3

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The reason I feel now is a good time is actually because of the Fund 10 voting. The Project Catalyst community seems to disengage after voting and between Fund rounds. Momentum could be our friend. Or perhaps you’re right and everyone is far too busy trying to vote.

There is a workshop next week via Zoom to discuss this more that was announced in the Town Hall yesterday a few hours after I posted this.

1 Like
4

Hey, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had not heard about this workshop. Can you send me a link?

1 Like
5

Absolutely. The link shared in Town Hall is here and it’s on Tuesday, Sep 12 @ 4:30-6 PM UTC.

2 Likes
6

Worth noting that it is labeled “Workshop #1”… I’m sure we will need several iterations to settle on healthy Category processes and to scope the possibilities for F11.

We definitely need to revisit after voting concludes, though, as there may be issues surfaced by voting results.

An example is that there are game theory aspects to how wallets should vote within a category they propose within, such as how they cast “NO” votes. There seems to be a correlation between “NO” vote accumulation and Category or Challenge size. This was observed in F9 but needs more data to back up the insight. But an early caution would be to avoid thrusting too many proposals into one space to compete, as it surfaces all sorts of negative behavior that has little to do with merit or value.

A huge question is “What do we want to accomplish with Categories?” and then to drill down on what is in scope or out of scope for the effort.

3 Likes
7

I have to admit that I am a bit dissatisfied that after running 10 rounds of Catalyst the process that forms it is still so opaque and undocumented. There is not one link on projectcatalyst.io that links towards processes that are in flight right now (eg: Category Scoping). The closest you can get is by searching on the open web, getting a GH issue on the Catalyst QA Dao from Quasar that links to The IOG Catalyst team breakout room recording, and then watching 10 minutes of video to find out that there is no information…

Nonetheless, I’ll be happy to make time and participate to see what that process looks like.

One thing about your position on Categories:

There seems to be a correlation between “NO” vote accumulation and Category or Challenge size

Maybe. But let’s not forget that correlation != causation. There is a very solid case for hidden variables here.

3 Likes
8

I couldnt agree more! It seemed an important topic but I was only hearing about it when I attended a twitterspace or zoom. That’s why I made this post. I wasnt sure how else to attempt to get more eyes on this topic.

Also agree.

2 Likes
9

Wanted to go to the meeting today but could not. How was it? Any recording or minutes?

1 Like
10

Sorry you missed it but there will be more, dates not announced yet though. I’m guessing that will continue to come through Town Halls. Happy to share here when that happens :slight_smile:

No minutes or recording that I’ve been able to find as of yet but it’s been less than 24 hours so maybe soon? On average there were only 10 people on the call; Daniel and Kriss from IOG, a few people from swarm, a few others I’ve seen on Town Halls, and a couple I just didnt know previously.
Here’s my summary…
We used a miro board for the discussion. We looked at the framework of the new four categories, discussed whether that made sense and captured everything - open vs misc, it was noted maybe we dont have a category for all proposals (no misc) and those wouldnt make the cut so to speak. There are a lot of stickies on this, but very few were discussed due to time.
Then we discussed the Product Development category. This was more interesting I feel. The board layout included a track under this category for ideas (new not funded before proposers) which isnt for established companies, innovation (has developed something already), and accelaration (already has users, seeking growth) and with each of these more money available as you move up tracks. To avoid excessive proposal submissions, it was suggested an ADA deposit be locked for submission. It was suggested that certifications be required to enter a category. Again, lots of stickies that didnt get discussion time. That’s all I captured, the meeting had a hard stop as Kriss and Daniel had a Twitter Space to join.

1 Like
11

More information shared in the Town Hall slides today.
Yesterdays Workshop recording here

Next up…
Workshop #2: Sep 19, 3PM UTC, register

1 Like
12

Thanks for sharing this information.

2 Likes
13

Once again, I would like to say thanks to you...

2 Likes
14

Very Good. I like this. Seems to be heading in a good direction. Seems to be going in a new direction which will bring life into the ecosystem in this bear market.

1 Like
15

Just a reminder for any and all that the next workshop is tomorrow.

16

Thanks for taking the time to create and share this informative post :ok_hand:

2 Likes
17

The second cat scoping workshop was held today. The same miro board (pwd catalyst) was used so feel free to look at our notes. I’ll share when I see the recording is shared.
Below is my recap of the meeting…

Discussion today largely focused around whether the number of proposals should be limited. Be it per fund, per person/company etc. Also discussed at length again was whether there should be a deposit or fee for submitting a proposal and should this be only for “big cat” ($$$) proposals. It was raised that this could limit those with limited funds and not limit those with larger amounts of disposable money. Alternatively, proof of life was suggested. It was pointed out that limiting the number of proposals per person would likely lead to pseudonym/fake names.

Also discussed was voter overwhelm, whether voters are overwhelmed by the number of proposals and should that direct us towards a maximum (per fund, per category, per person, etc). It was suggested that alternatively voters could be overwhelmed not with the volume but in simply trying to find relevant proposals and tagging would simplify the process. A limit on the number of proposals one can submit could cause a reduction in diversity and creativity. It was difficult to reach any consensus on what an appropriate limit on proposals could be. While one person suggested 5 is all anyone could reasonably manage, another person pointed out that level of effort is a hidden factor. For example one person making numerous smaller contributions could work on 20.

At the end it was discussed that the community could host their own workshops (different time zones/communities) and funnel the information back. These meetings could also be better advertised. There will be more discussion in the next days (9/20) after town hall breakout room.

2 Likes
18

Please see the category scoping categories added to the parameters draft. Anyone can comment and suggest things.

3 Likes
19

Thank you for writing this up and getting it started. I do question the addition of subcategories and the ones chosen. This hasnt really been discussed, at least not that way, in the workshops. What was discussed was subcategories/tracks ideas, innovation, and acceleration. Each increased the available pool of funds and shifted requirements for eligibility. We only discussed one category in any depth though.

Personally I dont see the need for subcategories, I’m an advocate for keeping it nice and simple. I recognize this opinion may be the minority lol

2 Likes
20

Link to a tweet that was sent out that includes the fund 10- feedback form which would be valuable for the category scoping.

1 Like