Project Catalyst: Innovation Fund or Bureaucracy in Need of Reform?

[mercy_tm]

Project Catalyst: Innovation Fund or Bureaucracy in Need of Reform?

Introduction

Project Catalyst (PC), Cardano’s flagship innovation fund, was created to inspire creativity, inclusivity, and collaboration. However, recent experiences tell a different story. Increasing bureaucracy, inconsistent rules, and poor communication now overshadow Catalyst’s founding ideals. Please see a summarized timeline of our interaction with Catalyst staff below this article.

Wada, a long-standing contributor to Cardano and an early Catalyst participant, has been directly affected. Our Fund 12 project—an essential initiative aimed at continuing impactful work in Africa—remains on hold due to Catalyst’s opaque and burdensome processes. This blog highlights these challenges and calls on the Cardano community to advocate for meaningful reform.

The Retroactive Rules Problem
In Fund 11, Catalyst introduced retroactive rules barring proposers with unresolved collaborative projects from earlier rounds unless stringent criteria were met. This policy unfairly penalized entities like Wada, forcing accountability for projects nearly three years old—projects that had adhered to the rules at the time.

Rather than offering clear communication and a grace period to adapt, the abrupt policy left Wada and others scrambling to meet unclear expectations. For more than a year, despite investing significant time compiling data, seeking clarification, and engaging in extensive discussions, we’ve encountered persistent roadblocks with no resolution in sight.

Collaboration, Undermined
Catalyst once celebrated collaboration as a driving force for innovation. Between Fund 4 and Fund 9, Wada and its partners completed nearly 60 projects (excluding the 5 under discussion), delivering measurable impacts and cementing Africa’s role as a thriving Cardano hub. This success was evident in Africa’s strong representation during this year’s constitutional workshops.

However, since Fund 11’s policy changes, Catalyst’s restrictive environment has stifled this momentum. Wada, once a leader in fostering Catalyst partnerships, has been forced to adopt limiting internal policies, curbing its ability to innovate and collaborate effectively.

A Year of Frustration
Over the past year, Wada has worked tirelessly to resolve these issues with the Catalyst team. While there have been moments of agreement, progress has repeatedly stalled. Agreements have been delayed, broken, or ignored, often under the pretext of protecting Cardano’s funds.

Ironically, this drawn-out process has been a significant waste—time, energy, and resources that could have been directed toward actual innovation. Instead, it has exposed systemic inefficiencies and a troubling lack of accountability.

What the Cardano Community Can Do
Catalyst now faces a pivotal decision: evolve into a transparent, effective innovation fund or continue down the path of bureaucratic rigidity. The Cardano community has the power to influence this direction by demanding the following:

1. Clear Dispute Resolution Processes: Independent mechanisms to address disputes fairly and promptly.
2. Transparent Communication: Consistent and clear messaging to end confusion and rebuild trust.
3. Accountability: Structures ensuring Catalyst serves Cardano’s ecosystem rather than internal interests.

Wada’s stalled Fund 12 project isn’t just an isolated problem—it’s a signal that reform is urgently needed. Without systemic changes, Catalyst risks losing its credibility and failing its mission.

The Path Forward
Catalyst was built to foster experimentation, collaboration, and innovation. To reclaim this vision, it must address systemic flaws, prioritize transparency, and hold itself accountable to the community it serves, especially as the Cardano community moves into the next era of governance.

Wada remains committed to driving meaningful progress in Cardano and urges the community to advocate for the reforms needed to restore Catalyst’s integrity. By working together, we can ensure Catalyst fulfills its potential as a true innovation fund.

Appendix
Wada team’s one-year interaction Timeline with the Catalyst team

[Kriss_Baird]

Mercy, firstly thank you for raising a topic regarding the accountability that funded projects have to the Cardano community. While there is some truth to what is presented in the post - in as much as WADA projects have been paused - there’s an omission from this post about why new funds plus Wada’s current pipeline of funding were put on hold.

Catalyst is going to take a bit of time before a more detailed response is formed here though transparency, accountability, and an understanding that all projects must be held to the same standards of evidence of achievement is what Catalyst provides to the community today.
Thanks
Kriss

[nexTrend]

Thank you Mercy, I hope the Catalyst team improves on their performance in communication and support.

Overall, there are some parts of this post that are not really clear to me where a bit more detail could be of help.

1. “This policy unfairly penalized entities like Wada, forcing accountability for projects nearly three years old—projects that had adhered to the rules at the time.”

As much as I know any funded project were supposed to be accountable through milestones completion before funds were given. I will love to know if there are more to this.

[nexTrend]

I will love to see that, catalyst is seriously needed to do more in terms of communication.

Until then I reserve my comment

[mercy_tm]

Thanks for your question nexTrend. Milestone-based funding only began with Fund 10. From Fund 2 (2020/21) to Fund 9, Catalyst directly engaged with primary proposers after receiving project progress reports, with no oversight or involvement for co-proposers in the funding disbursement process. Now, four years later, Catalyst is shifting accountability to co-proposers for unfinished projects, rather than addressing flaws in its own funding disbursement practices.

[nexTrend]

Now, I get it.

Thanks for the response

[mercy_tm]

Wada has never asked to be treated differently, just fairly. And for the Catalyst team to behave professionally. We have provided a timeline of our interaction with you with our post. So we do look forward to hearing of the omission you mention.

[mercy_tm]

Also @Kriss_Baird while you’re at it, could you clarify what happens to Catalyst funds taken from the Cardano Treasury but not used for projects? Are these funds returned to the Treasury or retained by Catalyst? Understanding this is important to determine whether the Catalyst team might have an incentive to delay or prevent project work by other builders to grow its own internal treasury balance. More clarity on this will be helpful.

[musikc]

Thank you for sharing your perspective and representing your community in Africa. I do agree there are a number of situations that illustrate some privilege that may not be the same in Africa and other areas. In particular the prior 500ADA requirement, now 25 ADA, or that everything is in English without translations when half our community are not native speakers.
That said, I am glad that Catalyst is taking some action on old proposals that werent completed or closed out before allowing new funds to be distributed for new projects. It’s mind blowing so many funded projects received initial funding and provided nothing. I myself am impacted in F13, listed as a co-proposer when we served an advisory role and trying to push that project to complete a milestone so all of us impacted can proceed. Its unfortunate that it impacted the Wada community but the overall intent was less waste.

[mercy_tm]

@musikc Thank you for your thoughtfulness in acknowledging challenges like language barriers and financial hurdles that affect regions like Africa, although not sure how exactly that applies here. Can you help me understand?
I completely agree that accountability is vital for trust and resource management. Wada has participated in Catalyst since Fund 1. Since Fund 4, Wada and collaborators have successfully completed almost 60 funded Catalyst projects; a statistic even the Catalyst team has expressed admiration of. So we understand accountability.
We skipped F11 entirely and for over one year we have sought to clear all legacy projects, whether as co-proposer or primary. The Catalyst team have, however, not been able to consistently work with us to conclude so we can freely participate in Catalyst. Please check the interaction timeline (here) attached to our post and tell us honestly what we could have done differently. That is the feedback we are sincerely craving at this point.
Thank you for engaging—conversations like these can drive meaningful improvements

[musikc]

@mercy_tm yes absolutely The amount of ADA one needed to vote was very limiting for many. I’m relieved to see it at 25 ADA now and hope this gives many more the ability to participate. As for the language barrier, it is relevant from submission of proposals to milestone completions. Some people rely on electronic translation or chatgpt to ensure they can submit in English. The downside is that Catalyst is looking for AI and penalizing for it (removal is possible) and reviewers are often critical as they cant tell the difference from AI for language barriers vs to game the system. Its an on-going WIP I suppose.

I did look at your attachment. First off, let’s just acknowledge the fabulous attention to detail that answered so much! As I read, I kept wondering at what point would I read what Daniel or Kriss had to say when you escalated. Have you spoken to either of them about this yet?

[mercy_tm]

@musikc I very much appreciate you clarifying about the potential for SOM - related communication difficulties. That’s what I thought you meant, but I wasn’t sure. Although as a general rule, this is a common misconception since many people in Africa can communicate well in English, and therefore not much different from many other parts of the world.
Secondly, the projects under discussion here are from Fund 6 to Fund 8. So statement of milestone difficulties don’t apply. The main issue we are facing with the Catalyst team is with regard to 4 proposals for which Wada was a co-proposer. As I mentioned in response to nexTrend’s question above, “Milestone-based funding only began with Fund 10. From Fund 2 (2020/21) to Fund 9, Catalyst directly engaged with primary proposers after receiving project progress reports, with no oversight or involvement for co-proposers in the funding disbursement process. Now, four years later, Catalyst is shifting accountability to co-proposers for unfinished projects, rather than addressing flaws in its own funding disbursement practices.”
Finally, the individuals you mentioned have been our primary contacts. As Kriss has mentioned above, he will be responding to this post in due course to provide their perception.
In the meantime, thanks again for your interest in this. Blessings and happy new year

[mercy_tm]

While we appreciate @KrissBaird’s prompt acknowledgment of our concerns and Catalyst’s stated commitment to transparency and accountability, it has now been a week without a detailed response. Kriss flagged an omission on our part immediately after our post, yet no clarification or evidence has been provided since. If it was truly a critical omission, why the delay?

These delay tactics and lack of responsibility highlights a deeper issue—without a fair dispute resolution process, Catalyst can continue making unilateral decisions without accountability. As Cardano moves into full voltaire, this should not be the standard of governance the community accepts.

Mentions for visibility: @YUTA_Oishi @archangelbob @KenLadd @musikc @ADAfrog @Sebastian_Pabon @Nicolas @adatainment (Please read our Interaction timeline and let us know if there is a legitimate reason why Wada has being excluded from Catalyst for over a year now, and why we can’t start our funded F12 project)

[musikc]

I dont know if you had this information but I was aware that the Catalyst team was on holiday and returning on Jan 7th. I suspect that may be part of the delayed response. That said, we are all curious to see how this is handled.

[YUTA_Oishi]

Hi Mercy, I always appreciate your efforts.

I know of one successful case where a co-proponent was removed from the project. In this case, the following two points may be considered:

1. Was WADA involved in the project from the beginning of the proposal submission?

2. Did the lead proponent communicate to the Catalyst team that they agreed that WADA should not be involved in the project at all?

If 1 is NO and 2 is YES, I think it would be a good idea to clearly communicate that to the Catalyst team.

Of course, this is just my speculation based on observing successful cases, so it does not guarantee success.

[mercy_tm]

Also appreciate all you do @YUTA_Oishi; the time you took to respond and all the value you bring to the Cardano community. We are lucky to have you.
Thanks for your suggestion, it is not an option we were aware of, or did it come up as a suggestion over the past year for us to explore. We will await Kriss’ response and determine next steps.

[mercy_tm]

We are extremely pleased to share that Wada’s dispute with Project Catalyst has been resolved. Catalyst has confirmed that Wada is now cleared to proceed with our Fund 12-approved project.
This resolution follows months of engagement and underscores the importance of clear communication, accountability, and fair processes in managing collaborative projects. While we appreciate the Catalyst team’s efforts in working through these matters, this experience highlights the need for structured and transparent dispute resolution mechanisms to prevent similar challenges in the future.
We remain committed to delivering impactful projects within the Cardano ecosystem and will apply the lessons learned to strengthen our approach going forward. Thanks to you all for your interest and support, as well as the Project Catalyst team for their hard work and dedication.
Let’s continue building together. cardano #ProjectCatalyst voltaire