These assessments are solely my own, made in my capacity as a community member. They are not endorsed by the Cardano Foundation (CF). Nothing here should be interpreted as CF voting guidance. The CF will not vote on these proposals. Final judgment, rationale, and voting decisions in this post are mine.
Why I built this
Cardano deserves a funding process that is open, consistent, and reproducible. To help us get there, I piloted a governance-focused assessment framework for Fund 14 and I’m publishing both the method and my first-round results. The goal is simple: make it easy for anyone in the community to understand how I reached a decision and to reuse or improve the framework next time. For scope and category constraints, I relied on the Fund 14 briefs, which define purpose, budgets, and timelines for Open: Ecosystem and Use Cases: Concepts.
To improve consistency and efficiency, I first scored each proposal myself using the rubric below, then used a large language-model tool to perform an independent scoring pass against the same rubric. This augmented approach allowed me to focus on nuance and strategic alignment; the final judgments and votes are mine.
How I assessed proposals
1) What I looked for (core criteria)
My framework follows the Fund 14 category rules and focuses on Cardano governance or governance-adjacent proposals. Each submission was examined for: category fit, clarity of milestones/KPIs, team capability, solution effectiveness, sustainability, and explicit governance impact (e.g., DRep participation targets, on-chain usage under CIP-1694/Voltaire).
2) Rubric (reproducible scoring)
Categorical ratings map to numbers for simple aggregation:
- Category Alignment: Poor (1) / Moderate (3) / Strong (5)
- Clarity of Plan, Milestones & KPIs: Low (1) / Medium (3) / High (5)
- Solution Effectiveness: Low (1) / Medium (3) / High (5)
- Operational Sustainability: Low (1) / Medium (3) / High (5)
- Team Experience: None (1) / Emerging (3) / Proven (5)
- Adoption Relevance: Low (1) / Medium (3) / High (5)
I also record CF Pillars Alignment and “Our Cardano” Alignment (Yes/No).
Strict Voting Rule - “Yes” only if ALL are true:
Strong category fit; High clarity; ≥ Medium effectiveness; ≥ Medium sustainability; ≥ Emerging team; and explicit, measurable governance/on-chain impact.
3) Process (human-led, tool-supported)
- Selection & filtering against Fund 14 category constraints.
- My initial pass: read in full, extract evidence, score.
- Independent LLM pass: summaries + scores against the same rubric (no access to my scores).
- Compare & resolve: if any criterion differed by ≥2 points, I re-read the source, hunted for missing evidence, and documented why I upheld or changed my rating.
- Decision: I wrote the final rationale and vote.
I made final judgment, rationale, and voting decisions.
Scope of this pilot
I focused on Fund 14 proposals that are governance or governance-adjacent. The initial filtering was a considerable effort: out of 583 proposals in the “Open: Ecosystem” category, only 15 aligned with governance themes. Similarly, of the 578 proposals in “Use Cases: Concepts,” just 25 were relevant. For this selected pool, category rules (purpose, ada ranges, ≤12-month timelines) were treated as hard constraints.
Results: proposal assessments & rationale
Review Summary Table - Cardano Use Cases: Concepts
| Proposal Title | Voting Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Pooling Platform for 100K ADA GA Deposit by Dquadrant | Yes | The proposal targets the 100k ADA governance-action deposit barrier with an open-source pooling DApp, fits the Concepts track (₳100k, 6 months), and provides time-bound milestones, acceptance criteria, and measurable on-chain KPIs. The deposit requirement is indeed 100k ADA, validating the problem focus. The Kuber/Dquadrant team shows delivery credibility (GovTool maintainer, Oversight Committee, one prior Catalyst completion).  Sustainability is medium due to audit costs excluded. Novelty overlaps with Sundae Labs’ CoSponsor, but a self-hostable, open-source pooling platform remains valuable for governance participation; overall a Yes. |
| Decentralized Governance Lending for On-chain GAs | Yes | The proposal aligns with Use Cases: Concepts, featuring a 6-month testnet MVP to enable borrowing a fixed 100k ada for governance actions via Danogo pools and a Tempo interface, with auto-repayment and transparent fees. It details specific milestones, acceptance criteria, and falsifiable KPIs (20–30 pilot loan cycles; 40–60 on-chain transactions) indicating measurable governance impact. Although the team lists relevant skills, they lack verifiable prior Catalyst experience, making their experience Emerging and sustainability Medium (proprietary MVP; reliance on liquidity pools). Overall, strong category fit and clear, testable impact make this a yes. |
| improve DAO decision making processes and decision quality | No | Although submitted to Use Cases: Concepts, the proposal markets a “fully operational SaaS” governance platform and requests ₳30,000 over six months, with outputs that are not open-source and vague success measures, and unclear on-chain MVP targets. Milestones are confusing (references to Fund 15/16 and repeated “Delivery Month: 2”), and KPIs favor qualitative evaluation; acceptance criteria list participants and discussions but lack verifiable on-chain metrics. The team experience is mentioned (Oracle tenure) but does not include prior Catalyst delivery evidence. These issues reduce plan clarity and category fit, resulting in a No. |
| CardanoSwipe(TikTok-Style Dapp): Swipe, Share, Earn, Vote | Yes | A 4-month, ₳90k MIT-licensed MVP aims to boost governance engagement through a TikTok-style dApp featuring testnet voting. It establishes clear KPIs (≥500 wallets, 10k views, 5k on-chain votes) along with specific milestones and acceptance criteria, addressing Use Cases: Concepts constraints. The proposer demonstrates a solid track record with prior Catalyst projects (e.g., Token 2049 side event; RWA lending PoC), supporting its deliverability. While sustainability is plausible, it lacks full evidence (no explicit revenue plan), so it is rated Medium. Overall, all strict criteria are met |
| Decentralised Voting and Authentication System | No | A 6-month, ₳100k AGPLv3 project aims to prototype VC-based authentication and voting with a real partner (Whangaroa Papa Hapū). It outlines use cases, concepts, specific milestones, acceptance criteria, and dependencies (Identus/standards). However, success metrics are qualitative and lack numerical targets or realistic usage projections, which reduces KPI clarity. The team references prior Catalyst delivery (Fund 9 TribalDIDs milestones) as evidence of capability. Sustainability seems feasible but isn’t demonstrated beyond open-source adoption. Because KPI clarity isn’t high, the strict rule results in a ‘No.’ |
| M9 privacy voting app - Privacy DAO for Cardano native asset | No | The proposal aligns with Use Cases: Concepts: ₳89,161 over 7 months to develop an open-source, Midnight-based anonymous voting MVP with established milestones and acceptance criteria (e.g., commit/reveal flow, unit test coverage, performance targets). However, success metrics lack clear, measurable on-chain/governance targets (such as user counts, transaction projections, or adoption goals), and dependencies on Midnight/ZK integration are only addressed at a prototype level. The team’s capability is described, but prior Catalyst delivery evidence is not provided. Since KPI clarity isn’t high and measurable impact isn’t explicit, we are compelled to vote NO. |
| Merit Based Decentralized Repuation Engine | No | The proposal aligns with Use Cases: Concepts on scope, budget (₳100k), and timeline (6 months), and commits to an open-source MVP with a testnet contract and API/dashboard. However, milestones and acceptance criteria are not fixed by time; on-chain metrics are mentioned but mostly unmeasured (only API ≥1,000/month and +40% engagement), and there are no pilot commitments or integrations to reduce cold-start risks. The team’s capabilities are claimed (based on previous tools for SingularityNET/Mindplex) but lack verifiable Catalyst delivery. Due to unclear KPIs and a weak adoption plan, it does not meet a key requirement for a yes vote. |
| Governance Kit R&D – Pro-Social Frameworks | No | The proposal fails to meet a core requirement of the “Use Cases: Concepts” category. The official brief mandates that projects must “Produce a working on-chain prototype or MVP.” The deliverables for this project consist of research, documentation, and a draft CIP, none of which constitute a functional, on-chain product. Although the research is valuable, its information-only output is explicitly misaligned with this category’s focus on tangible product delivery. Furthermore, the KPIs are qualitative and lack measurable on-chain usage projections, making it impossible to verify impact. Due to the non-compliance with the mandatory MVP rule, this proposal does not qualify for funding in this category. |
| Pollify.net - Decentralized Governance & Truth Certification | Yes | This proposal aligns with the “Use Cases: Concepts” category, which explicitly allows for “adding features to existing early-stage prototypes” provided there is evidence of the prototype’s novelty and early status. While a functioning product exists, the project is still validating its core concept and product-market fit. The funding is targeted at the essential R&D and mainnet launch necessary to transition the concept into a viable, tested MVP. With a strong team, robust sustainability model, and clear on-chain metrics (25k users, 50k transactions), the proposal meets the category requirements for delivering a fully realized on-chain product. |
| Cardano AI Risk-Manager for treasury financial resilience | Yes | This proposal warrants a “Yes” vote by recognizing its output as a vital public good for Cardano’s governance. Although lacking a commercial plan, its sustainability can likely be achieved through future community funding, justifying a Medium rating. With this key criterion now satisfied, the proposal’s outstanding qualities are clear. It is led by a qualified team, features a detailed plan with technical KPIs, and addresses a critical need for treasury resilience. The project’s strength across all other categories makes it a high-value investment for the ecosystem’s long-term health. |
| Quality Assurance: On-Chain & Off-Chain Audit | Yes | This ₳100k/5-month pilot covers Use Cases: Concepts by delivering an open-source MVP that integrates on-chain tracing (wallet clustering, anomaly detection) with off-chain verification and publishes hashed audit reports on Cardano, along with a public dashboard/API, supported by clear, time-bound milestones and acceptance criteria for 200 audits. Dependencies (access to Catalyst/Intersect data and Reeve integration) are acknowledged; team credentials are relevant (Intersect Budget Committee member; blockchain engineer), but prior Catalyst completions are not verified, so the track record is Emerging. Overall, strong category fit and measurable governance impact justify a Yes. |
| drep.space – MVP Validation of Governance Matching Tool | No | A 6-month, ₳47,500 MVP proposes a values-based DRep-matching web app with clear milestones (quiz engine, matching logic, directory; closed cohort; open pilot; validation report) and open-source outputs, so plan clarity is high. However, success mainly happens off-chain (300–600 quiz completions, 100+ DRep profiles, click-throughs to delegation portals), and the MVP explicitly postpones on-chain delegation integration to future iterations. There are no targets for delegated wallets or on-chain transactions are provided. Team experience is relevant but Catalyst-specific delivery is not demonstrated, and a Cardano dev partner is TBD, so track record is Emerging. Under the strict rule (Strong category fit + explicit on-chain/governance impact), the vote is No. |
| DIG Governance App: Blockchain Voting for Business Chambers | Yes | A ₳92,000, 5-month MVP builds on Cardano Ballot to deliver a tenure-weighted voting app with SSO onboarding, audit-ready receipts, and open-source MPL-2.0 code, meeting Concepts’ scope and timeline/budget limits. Milestones are time-bound with clear acceptance criteria (pilot with 50+ companies, ≥2 proposals and votes, on-chain receipts) and a full rollout plan (>5 verified votes), providing explicit governance impact. DIG’s 300+ member base and in-house pilot increase adoption likelihood; Binar Apps adds relevant Cardano/Plutus/GovTool expertise, though prior Catalyst completions aren’t evidenced, so experience is Emerging. Sustainability is Medium (open-source reuse, replication playbook). Overall: Yes. |
| TribalDAOs Technical Blueprint | No | This proposal is misaligned with the “Use Cases: Concepts” category’s primary requirement to deliver a working on-chain product. The project’s sole deliverable is an open-source “technical blueprint,” which is an informational asset, not a functional MVP. The category brief clearly states that proposals must “Produce a working on-chain prototype or MVP,” and information-heavy projects are not a fit. While the proposal mentions KPIs like proposals and votes, it provides no specific targets or a mechanism to achieve them without a deployed product. Because the deliverables do not include a functional on-chain application, the proposal does not satisfy the strict rules of the category. |
| Treasury Guardian | No | The ₳60k, 7-month, MIT-licensed Treasury Guardian proposes a web platform that issues a Proof of Registration and tracks teams’ ADA repayments to the Treasury, with milestones to launch a public dashboard and link repayments to on-chain transactions. The projected success is 2 on-chain users and 10 Catalyst teams in the next round. However, the MVP is mostly off-chain (PoR may be an NFT, hash, or ID) and lacks concrete, testable on-chain targets or pilot commitments. The milestone delivery months are inconsistent, and the team mentions experience but no prior Catalyst deliveries. Under the strict rules, Category Alignment and KPI clarity are lacking, so the vote is No. |
| DRep DAO Platform | No | The ₳94k/12-month proposal aims to develop a DRep-managed DAO platform featuring wallet login, proposal debate, voting, and optional milestone-based fund releases. It establishes measurable goals for launch, such as at least 8% of on-chain DRep voting power participating and a minimum of 8 submitters and proposals. However, key on-chain components are deferred or optional, for example, fund distribution might initially rely on Intersect, and smart contracts are considered desirable but not essential. Success also depends on subsequent governance steps, like a successful treasruy withdrawl, which is an external dependency. The milestones are detailed but contain sequencing inconsistencies. |
| DRep Voting Management Platform—Your AI Congressional Staff | No | The proposal requests ₳98k over 12 months to develop an AI “chief of staff” for DReps; a public demo exists, and milestones/KPIs are specific (≥200 assisted reads, ≥60 users, ≥35 memos). However, deliverables are mainly off-chain (summaries, memos, workshops), and the “on-chain alignment” goals are observational rather than involving a new on-chain MVP or wallet integration that is necessary for Use Cases: Concepts. Code will not be fully open-sourced (only templates/datasets under CC BY 4.0), and no prior Catalyst completions are shown. While the plan is clear, the strict rules mean the category fit isn’t strong enough; vote: No. |
| Ekklesia: High-Frequency Voting on Cardano with Hydra | Yes | This is a well-defined MVP that enables high-frequency governance polling through Hydra, with results anchored on L1 (Merkle root) and immutable IPFS proposals, directly increasing governance participation. The plan is solid, seven months, ₳100k, with milestone acceptance criteria covering Hydra integration, APIs, documentation, a CIP draft, an independent audit, and an Apache-2.0 open-source release. The team (Adam Dean & Mad Orkestra) has demonstrated delivery, including the first Cardano on-chain vote and an Intersect budget-signaling MVP, reducing execution risk. The expected impact can be measured through monthly mainnet-settled polls and verifiable transactions, providing credible governance signals at low L1 cost. I vote Yes based on clarity, feasibility, and proven track record. |
| InfoAction/GovAction as a Service | No | The MVP relies on a pooled 100k ADA float for each governance/InfoAction, but the proposal doesn’t specify who supplies that ADA, how lenders are protected, or how defaults and liquidity risks are managed while deposits are locked during the voting period (100k ADA refundable deposit per governance action). Existing Cardano lending platforms (e.g., Liqwid, Lenfi, Danogo fixed pools) already have proven mechanisms for sourcing and insuring capital; a simple integration with those protocols would avoid creating a custom lender network and reduce smart-contract and operational risks. voting No until this is re-scoped as an integration, with identified liquidity partners and clear lender protections. |
| SIDAN - Delegator Feedback System for DRep Voting | Yes | The proposal fits the Concepts category with a 5-month, ₳100k open-source MVP to gather delegator feedback on Discord, display headcount and stake-weighted tallies to DReps, and record rationale hashes on-chain, providing clear, verifiable governance outputs. Milestones, acceptance criteria, and cost breakdown are detailed; KPIs include 100% coverage of on-chain proposals for their DRep and on-chain-referenced votes. The Sidan Lab team demonstrates proven Catalyst delivery and active DRep practice, boosting confidence in execution. Sustainability is feasible as a public-good, self-hostable tool with open APIs. These factors meet the strict rule; adoption begins with one DRep but is designed for broader reuse. |
| GovCircle: Strengthening Cardano’s Constitutional Framework | No | The proposal is governance-focused and well-intentioned, but most deliverables are research and design artifacts such as constitutional articles, reports, design requirements, and communication packages rather than a clear, testable on-chain MVP required for Use Cases: Concepts. KPIs lean toward off-chain outputs and interactions, with only limited, specific on-chain targets and no concrete path for adoption. Although the budget and 10-month timeline fit category constraints, sustainability depends on follow-on grants and partners, and while the team is involved, they lack a proven track record. Since category fit and KPI/plan clarity do not meet a “High” standard, I am voting No. |
| Decentralized Presidential Voting System | No | The concept aligns with the Use Cases: Concepts track and outlines an MVP (a simulated election with up to 1,000 users) plus time-boxed milestones, but key execution risks remain unresolved. The plan relies on government and telecom partnerships without evidence of commitments, and privacy/security claims lack clear design details. Only one named team member is listed, and no verifiable delivery history or repositories are provided. The budget (₳60k) and 10-month scope aim to cover a full voting stack, which is ambitious for a small, unproven team. KPIs (e.g., 80% turnout) are aspirational, and pathways to adoption are unclear. Therefore, I vote No. |
| VoteScope AI: Voter Turnout Intelligence for SPOs & DReps | Yes | This fits well with Use Cases: Concepts, proposing an MVP analytics tool to boost voter turnout and targeted outreach for DReps/SPOs, with clear deliverables like a dashboard, alerts, A/B testing, leaderboards, and API, along with an 8-month plan. The requested ₳99,975 is within scope, with milestone-based costs and hours itemized. The team (Sapient) has prior completed Catalyst grants and active data tooling, reducing execution risk. Adoption KPIs are clear (DRep/SPO onboarding and MAU growth), and the validation approach is solid. Sustainability is feasible through continued tooling/API use, though revenue stream is less clear. |
| DRep AI Assistant: Support for Governance, SPOs and Reeve | Yes | This proposal aligns with the Cardano Use Cases: Concepts category by creating a new AI assistant designed for Cardano governance, offering specialized support for DReps, SPOs, and enterprises through on-chain integrations and analysis tools. It aims to influence governance with measurable metrics such as 80% positive user feedback, on-chain DRep logins, and token usage, to boost participation and decision-making. The team, with a history of successfully completing previous Catalyst grants, shows the ability to deliver. The yes vote is based on the proposal’s clear plan, sustainable open-source licensing, and direct contribution to Cardano’s governance priorities. |
| Simple Secure On-Chain Voting App for Everyone | No | This proposal aligns with the Cardano Use Cases: Concepts category by creating a prototype for a straightforward on-chain voting app that uses unique codes for secure, transparent elections on Cardano. It targets community groups like universities and NGOs. The project aims to demonstrate governance impact through 5-10 pilots, 500-1,500 invite codes, and participation rates of over 80%, helping build trust and encourage blockchain adoption. The team demonstrates relevant skills and previous involvement in funded Catalyst proposals but lacks proof of completion, indicating developing capability to deliver. The No vote is based on the lack of a credible sustainability plan beyond open-sourcing the code, which limits its long-term potential. |
| ZKP Voting Application on a tiered based algorithm | No | The proposal requests ₳99,800 over 10 months to develop a ZKP voting app that uses Midnight for proof verification and then connects results to Cardano, making the project dependent on a non-Cardano chain and its timeline. This significant reliance on Midnight, along with vague, mostly off-chain KPIs and no clear sustainability plan, reduces category alignment, adoption relevance, and operational feasibility. While the team has some previous Catalyst research delivery, I do not support funding Midnight-related builds from the Cardano treasury; therefore, my vote is No. |
Review Summary Table - Cardano Use Cases: Concepts
| Proposal Title | Voting Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| DRep Voting Transparency Platform for Cardano Holders | No | This proposal, submitted to the Cardano Open: Ecosystem category, aims to create a web platform to display DRep voting histories to enhance transparency and delegation, but it mainly involves software development, which doesn’t align with non-technical initiatives. It predicts governance impact through 300 unique visits and a 10% increase in delegation rates. The team, led by a developer with four years of Cardano experience, demonstrates emerging capability but has no prior grant history. The no vote is due to the category mismatch, as the project focuses on technical development rather than education or community activities. |
| Cardano DRep Check: Building Trust in On-Chain Governance | No | The proposal requests ₳55,000 over 12 months in the Open: Ecosystem category but focuses on building a complete technical platform, backend/data pipelines, a React dashboard, and Plutus-based components, rather than a non-technical program. This conflicts directly with the category’s scope and is a clear disqualifier under the guidelines. While milestones and acceptance criteria are fairly clear, and open-source licensing is specified, the team’s experience is not demonstrated with previous Catalyst deliveries, and sustainability remains unclear. Vote: No due to category mismatch despite reasonable governance intent. |
| Cardano Governance Indonesia Education | Yes | This proposal is an excellent fit for the Open: Ecosystem category, presenting a well-structured plan to educate the large and underserved Indonesian community on Cardano governance. The project’s effectiveness is high, as providing localized content in Bahasa Indonesia directly addresses language barriers to participation. The plan is clear, with specific deliverables and meaningful KPIs that go beyond vanity metrics to include tracking new voter registrations. While the team is new to Catalyst, their community-building experience is relevant. The project’s strong category alignment, clear impact, and well-defined plan warrant a “Yes” vote. |
| Agora Research Bureau - Voltaire | Yes | The proposal aligns with Open: Ecosystem, offering non-technical, public-good outputs like 300 governance analyses with on-chain rationales, bilingual in English and Portuguese (EN/PT-BR), along with a detailed, time-bound milestone plan that ensures clear verifiability. KPIs are specific, such as ≥4% engagement, ≥75% satisfaction, and top-100 dRep by unique wallets, providing measurable impact on governance transparency and participation. It’s led by an experienced contributor (Rodrigo Pacini) with a history of funded delivery and Catalyst milestone-review expertise, enhancing confidence in delivery. Sustainability remains moderate thanks to a reusable research framework and ongoing DRep activities. Overall, the category fit and plan clarity meet the strict requirements; I vote Yes. |
| 9DAO sample project | Yes | This is an education-first governance initiative that aligns Open: Ecosystem (non-technical outputs) with a clear plan: live/e-learning content, mini-games, and three on-chain voting sessions targeting approximately 100 participants each with on-chain evidence, plus community reporting KPIs. The scope, timeline (12 months), and budget (₳19,500) meet category constraints. The team cites prior completed Catalyst delivery (Vcoincheck), supporting execution credibility. Sustainability is plausible (community partnerships/crowdfunding) but not fully detailed, so rated Medium. Overall, the initiative shows a strong category fit, measurable governance participation targets, and a proven delivery history that justify a Yes. |
| SanchoNet Education Network Governance Resources | Yes | The proposal aligns with Open: Ecosystem by focusing on governance education and mentorship instead of developing software. It commits to over 20 online workshops (EN/FR), a series of workshops in Africa, updated infographics and videos, and a mentorship network, all open-source with clear acceptance criteria and proof of completion over a 7-month period. The budget is ₳60k (at the category cap) with a transparent breakdown. The team, consisting of Mike Hornan and Adam Rusch, demonstrates strong credentials in governance education and SanchoNet coordination. Success will be measured through publicly available, verifiable outputs and reports that support tangible governance impact. Overall, the quality of the plan and the team’s capabilities justify a Yes. |
| DRep Mentorship Circle: Peer-to-Peer Governance Growth Model | Yes | This proposal aligns with Open: Ecosystem through a non-technical, incentive-driven mentorship pilot designed to activate and retain DReps. It outlines measurable KPIs (15+ mentor–mentee pairs, 60+ sessions, 70% retention, 85% satisfaction) and a five-month milestone plan with specific acceptance criteria and a 45k ADA budget, demonstrating strong planning discipline. The DRepChain/WADA team references a completed Fund 12 onboarding project, highlighting their delivery capability. The expected governance impact includes more trained and active DReps, along with open data and reusable materials for replication and future scaling. Given the focused scope, measurable outcomes, and credible team, I vote Yes. |
| The dRep Hour Africa: Podcast by African dReps Proposal | No | The proposal for Open: Ecosystem is well-structured: it involves a 24-episode multilingual governance podcast with measurable output KPIs, a six-month timeline, and a ₳54k budget under CC-BY licensing. Milestones, acceptance criteria, and cost breakdowns are clear and realistic, and the team references prior community efforts like Africa Townhall and Catalyst School. However, success is mainly defined by media metrics and self-reported awareness rather than specific governance outcomes such as targeted increases in delegations, DRep engagements, or participation rates. Without concrete, verifiable governance-impact targets, it does not meet the strict voting rules despite solid planning. |
| dRep Voting Power Saturation Research | No | The proposal falls under the Open: Ecosystem category but doesn’t justify ₳60,000 for five months of work focused on six webinars and a research report (no implementation). KPIs include vanity metrics such as “reach of posts” and “enthusiasm,” with no clear, measurable on-chain redelegation targets, which weakens verifiability and impact attribution. The team’s credentials reflect governance involvement rather than a proven research delivery history in Catalyst. Outputs are one-time (reports, datasets, webinars) with unclear sustainability after the grant and only a “governance action draft” path to impact, not adoption, raising questions about value for money. |
| Seasons of Collaboration: Funding the ODIN Initiative | Yes | The proposal aligns with Open: Ecosystem by funding a non-technical program to enhance governance capacity through ODIN’s “Season of Collaboration.” It outlines clear milestones with deliverables, acceptance criteria, and evidence such as outreach, sprints, showcases, and published reports, meeting the clarity requirement. The budget is ₳60k spread across three milestones within a 4-month period, satisfying category constraints. The team highlights relevant governance contributions (Intersect committees, Gimbalabs, Treasury Guild), demonstrating capability. The expected impact can be measured through participant counts, proposals generated, and documented outputs, supporting a Yes vote. |
| DRep Online Training | No | The proposal aligns with Open: Ecosystem and has clear milestones, but its KPIs are limited to attendance and feedback rather than measurable governance impact. It requests ₳21,000 over seven months to run small online sessions (2–6 people each, with a minimum of 10 trained across two milestones), which suggests modest reach for the spend. It is also positioned as training “modeled after Intersect training,” implying duplication of existing efforts. Given the narrow scale, absence of explicit on-chain or governance outcome metrics, and single-person delivery risk, I vote No despite the clear plan. |
| dRep of Africa: Local Profile Hub and Delegator Guide | No | The proposal focuses on creating a regional DRep directory and delegator guide with webinars and workshops over six months. Although clearly governance-focused, it duplicates functions already supported by the GovTool DRep Directory, risking fragmentation and limiting network-wide value. It also combines content creation with a new website development, work that is technical for the Open: Ecosystem category and lacks a credible sustainability plan beyond the grant. KPIs are heavily outreach-driven and not linked to measurable governance results (e.g., net new delegations). Due to overlap, limited geographic scope, and weak sustainability, I vote No. |
| dRep4Schools - Student Leadership Meets Cardano Governance | Yes | The proposal is a non-technical governance education program (Open: Ecosystem) requesting ₳46,000 over 6 months. It includes detailed milestone gating and clear acceptance criteria, such as 10 school MoUs, at least 1,000 students, 50+ student dReps, 500+ delegations, a public no-code microsite, and an open toolkit, which make verification straightforward. It commits to Apache-2.0/CC-BY public goods and monthly reporting to support reuse and transparency. I rate experience as Emerging. Due to strong category fit, concrete KPIs, and measurable governance outcomes (even if simulated), I vote Yes. |
| Project Catalyst dRep Analysis Framework | Yes | The proposal is a non-technical governance education and analysis framework suitable for Open: Ecosystem. It requests ₳59,920 over 12 months and presents a detailed, milestone-based budget with verifiable outputs, including frameworks, reports, tutorials, and translations. KPIs aim for 20 DReps engaged, 200 delegating wallets, and ₳50M in delegations, ambitious but clear goals. The lead demonstrates substantial governance involvement. Overall, the specific plan, measurable governance impact, and public outputs support a cautious “Yes.” |
| Governance in Pictures | No | The proposal is a non-technical, educational resource on Cardano Governance with a ₳25,000 budget and a 7-month schedule, fits within Open: Ecosystem constraints. It lays out detailed milestones and acceptance criteria, but its only stated metric is page views, with no measurable governance outcomes (e.g., voting participation, DRep registrations). It also depends on securing a third-party host and funding for publication, with no plan for maintenance after the grant. Due to weak impact metrics and sustainability concerns, I vote No despite category fit. |
What I learned from the human vs. tool comparison
- Highest agreement: category alignment and plan clarity: areas anchored by explicit Fund 14 rules.
- Most divergence: solution effectiveness and sustainability: these require domain context (e.g., how education translates to on-chain action under decentralized Governance). Here I leaned on governance documentation and DRep role expectations.
- Net effect: the tool improved consistency checks; my ratings changed only when new evidence appeared. The deciding question remained: will this deliver explicit, measurable governance outcomes within category constraints?
Reproducibility: use (or fork) this model
- Use the rubric and Strict Voting Rule above.
- Collect evidence directly from proposal pages; link acceptance criteria, KPIs, budgets, and timelines.
- Do a human first pass, then (optionally) run an independent tool pass for summaries and a second score. Compare and adjust only if new evidence warrants it.
- Publish JSON + rationale per proposal so others can audit your logic.
- Cite category rules and governance references so readers can trace constraints and intent.
I welcome reviews and forks of this framework. Are these the right criteria? What would you change in the strict voting rule? Share feedback so we can keep refining a transparent, community-driven assessment model for Project Catalyst.
Thank you Nicolas for sharing your assessment and for piloting a transparent governance-focused framework. It’s encouraging to see the Cardano Foundation taking a supportive role in helping the community evaluate proposals.