Hello from Yoram Ben Zvi and Benjamin Ben Zvi representing ELKsconnect.com. For several years now we have been active in discussions with 10s of “real world” solutions and web 2 enterprises with the goal to integrate blockchain technology to support their operation and revenue growth. We are collaborating with a range of Cardano Dapps, tooling and infrastructure providers that facilitate and support enterprise adoption. Through the process we well understand the opportunities and challenges with onboarding enterprises to use Cardano based solutions. We are very optimistic about what is coming to Cardano but also understand the process needed for adoption.*
To review our recent work:
Here is a link to a ppt with a full list of proposals supported for fund 14 across all categories. It includes many first time proposers on catalyst but also companies we onboarded in previous funds and keep on supporting their work and progress. It also includes the proposals we are directly involved with.
As part of the initiative of the Cardano Foundation to have field experts evaluating proposals we also started to evaluate the proposals from the Partner & Product Category focusing on enterprise adoption. While we think the initiative is important and can be very helpful for voters, we also believe that for better efficiency of the process we should have a mentor layer supporting proposals before submission. In this case we can make sure the proposal and team are at the expected level to increase the quality and compatibility.
In 2024 a group of community mentors had multiple workshops related to project catalyst and one of the recommendations was to create an onboarding projects mentorship program. Here is a link to a framework (still need work but convey the idea).
We started to analyze the proposals (more info below), however for fund 14, we decided to highlight only the proposals we are directly involved with as mentors or proposals directly related to our work. Here is why:
- Show accountability – These are the projects where we have concrete involvement, either as proposers or mentors. If funded, we will share responsibility in delivering their outcomes.
- Offer deeper insight – Since we are part of these teams or supporting the teams, we can give the community detailed context about their roadmaps, impact potential, and execution capacity. A lot of our work with new proposers is done prior to submission.
- Avoid perceived bias – if we include our proposals within other recommendations it gives the impression of favoritism.
- Strengthen partnerships – Highlighting only proposals we are involved with helps bring visibility to the organizations, governments, and enterprises we are collaborating with—many of whom are entering the Cardano ecosystem for the first time and it is very difficult for them to get visibility otherwise
- AI analysis could be misleading - we tried analyzing the proposals using AI - but we do not think it makes justice. It could provide a general reference, but the results are too superficial - some proposers can just know how to write a great proposal (also using AI) and will get high ratings.
- Deep analysis requires time: to have a very detailed analysis of so many proposals will take a lot of time and effort. We also need to get to know the teams of each proposal and their motivation. As VCs will say team is everything - and it will take some time to evaluate teams we do not know.
List of recommended proposals - Partner & Product with focus on enterprise adoption (all proposals are related to ELK and ELK is supporting them in someway)
Full list of fund 14 supported proposals
Evaluation Process
As mentioned we started to evaluate all proposals in the partner category - here is the methodology we initiated (but finally from the reasons above we choose to present only proposals we are somehow involved with).
When evaluating the proposals in the Partners & Products category, our approach aimed to balance strategic impact for the Cardano ecosystem with realism in execution. We applied a structured scoring system that combined both qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria. Each proposal was reviewed holistically across the following dimensions:
-
Enterprise Adoption Potential – Does the project bring recognizable businesses, governments, or NGOs into the Cardano ecosystem? We prioritized initiatives that unlock large-scale adoption of Cardano in established industries (finance, agriculture, supply chains, compliance).
-
Tooling & Infrastructure Contribution – Beyond the specific product, does the solution create reusable infrastructure (APIs, compliance frameworks, integrations) that other builders in the ecosystem can leverage? Projects that strengthen Cardano’s developer and enterprise foundations scored higher.
-
Impact Focus & Real-World Use Cases (RealFi / RWA relevance) – We asked whether the proposal addresses a real problem—financial inclusion, sustainability, climate action, supply chain traceability—where Cardano provides unique value compared to existing solutions.
-
Open Source – We rated proposals higher if they contribute codebases openly, form cross-ecosystem alliances, or connect Cardano to external networks. As the funding comes for a public treasury and it is used for commercial activities, open source is a big plus.
-
Clarity of Execution (KPIs & Roadmap) – Clear milestones, measurable KPIs, credible teams, and transparent budgets were essential. Large funding requests needed to justify their scale with proportionally larger ecosystem impact and detailed execution. Proposals requesting a higher amount of funds were examined more carefully for actual traction and on chain transactions
-
Category Alignment (“Category Fit”) – Even a strong project might not fully align with the Partners & Products category. We explicitly tracked this fit, as Catalyst funds should match the intent of each challenge category.
Overall Rating (/5) & Voting Recommendation – After weighing all factors, each proposal was distilled into a simple score from 1 to 5. Alongside ratings, we gave concise explanations of “Why vote Yes” and “Why not to vote,” ensuring transparency. A 1. final recommendation indicated whether to support the proposal or not.
Ultimately, our focus was on identifying proposals that can deliver tangible adoption, institutional credibility, and infrastructure that strengthens Cardano for the long term.
