Fund9 Feedback - Your Insights On Catalyst Are Needed!

Time to pause and reflect.

Slowing down allows us to release energy to look at the process of Catalyst and reflect upon opportunities how to meaningfully improve and iterate forward. One of the major reasons to have a cooldown is to allow for that collective clarity without rushing toward the next deadline. Let’s focus on a set of collective outcomes instead.

As a result, there currently isn’t a start date pinned down for Fund10. It is our intention to take into account a comprehensive stock of all signals and experiences before moving on to the next funding cycle.

I encourage everyone in the community to gather together and discuss/debate and hold retrospectives. Document them in a long-form and share the outcomes widely. As part of reviewing our most recent fund, we’ve put together the Fund9 iteration of the feedback form. We’d appreciate greatly your time helping us fill in the gaps and highlight where to focus our attention to.

The outcome of this survey will be shared publicly together with all the key insights. You can see Fund8 version here for your reference.

Fund9 Feedback Form: :point_left:

Read more updates like the above from my 53rd issue of Friday newsletter. Hit the notifications bell not to miss one next week!

You can also retweet this call to action here:


Thank you! I’m really curious to see the results.

Tried to answer it in the gist of:

I still think that the biggest problem are the assessments. Not even the “Catalyst people” believe that their star rating says anything about if a proposal should receive funding or not.

The sorting of proposals by the average rating has to go!

In fact, it doesn’t even make sense to compute an equally weighted average between the stars for the three assessment questions.

And I would still want to see the filtered out assessments, especially for the highly discussed “Turbo” proposal to really see if the problem of that assessment round was that there were no assessors who could see the massive problems with it or if there were critical assessments that were filtered out.

And, please, do not start another round before we have desktop voting! Ideally with the possibility to have independent voting clients that can also experiment with other recommendation mechanisms.


Thank you for your thoughts and for sharing it with us all. Appreciate it.

Need to add my legal framework: Legal Framework that Goes With My Catalyst Nomination for Those Interested in Governance - English / Governance (Catalyst) - Cardano Forum

So we do not have lynch mob trials like what happened to Dimitri Fernando. This will also give a legal basis to expand upon as the community sees fit.

Heya, just for the benefit of other readers - here is an example of all Assess QA work for Fund9 that is published. All information is available via vPA Aggregate File - Fund9 - Google Sheets

Thanks for pinging me I’ve missed sharing earlier, @HeptaSean! Cheers.

1 Like