The Catalyst project is an experiment, I understand that and I continue to participate in it because I want to make a contribution. However, I am now at a point of frustration and I don’t know whether it is better for me to continue in the current phase or to stand down until voting time comes.
My frustration does not come from the process - that was clearly communicated, as were the rules. What I’m struggling with is the nature of most proposals. Not only some, but most. Let me explain.
The challenge statement is this:
How can we encourage developers and entrepreneurs to build Dapps and businesses on top of Cardano in the next 6 months?
This mission is critical because it’s the contributions from developers and entrepreneurs that will determine the value of Cardano.
Clear enough to me as a scope statement. Yet, from the 97 currently open proposals there are only about 10 which, according to my totally unfair, subjective judgement, are even potentially within that scope. Maybe I’m too severe, but what I expected were proposals which aim to create something of use for developers and entrepreneurs. There are some that meet this criterion. The bulk of proposals, however, falls onto one of the following categories:
Please fund my startup or NGO. Sorry, this is not a venture fund. According to my understanding, to encourage businesses to build on Cardano does not include paying them to do so.
Pay me to create my podcast / video / blog. Obviously you are creating your podcast or video anyway, so you already have incentives. Why should we fund it? What does it provide that the established formats don’t?
Pay me to build some SPO tool. I would consider SPOs hobbyists, at most. Neither developers nor entrepreneurs, so out of scope.
Information is so scattered and hard to find. Let’s create a centralized <something> (no, really!) or at least some educational content. Usually a video (see above) or education business (see above). In any case, repackaging of something that is already there. Not needed.
So now I’m supposed to assess 97 proposals, of which I believe 90% should be thrown out. All, of course, using constructive criticism. This is why I’m frustrated and stopped giving feedback for now. Tomorrow I guess I’ll spend my energy on the few proposals that I think could make it.
Yes, I am aware that 10% “good” ones is probably an expected rate at this stage.
To end this on a positive note, here are some suggestions:
- Why don’t we charge a small fee for the right to submit a proposal? The current number is still manageable, but what if there are ten times as many?
- Create a venture fund. There should be stricter rules than in fund2 and required skin in the game. Profits from funded ventures could even go back into the fund for subsequent rounds.