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.
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.