Funding Categorisation Analysis
  • Overview
  • What Is Funding Categorisation?
  • Categorisation Types
    • Idea Categorisation Analysis
    • Contributor Categorisation Analysis
  • Analysis
    • Comparing Funding Categorisation Types
    • Scaling Funding Categories
    • Combining vs Separated Idea & Contributor Categorisations
    • Rapid Funding Considerations
    • Review Of Paper “A Treasury System for Cryptocurrencies"
  • Community Goals & Objectives
    • Goals & Objectives
    • Objective Setting
    • Progress & Outcome Auditing
    • Independent Goals & Objective Setting Process
    • Goals & Objectives With Challenge Settings
    • Goal & Objectives With Funding Categories
    • Integrating Goals & Objectives Into Voting
  • Historical Analysis & Comparisons
    • Categorisation Overall Cost Comparison
      • Methodology & Data
    • Funding Access For Each Focus Area
      • Methodology, Data & Feedback
      • Fund 10
      • Fund 9
      • Fund 8
      • Fund 7
    • Categorisation Setting Observations
      • Fund 9
      • Fund 8
    • Categories & Previous Selected Categorisations
    • Previous Selected Categorisations
      • All Previous Challenge Setting
  • Challenge Settings
    • Challenge Setting Process
    • Challenge Setting Issues
  • 🔗Links
    • Funding Categories
    • All Documentation
    • Suggest Changes & Give Feedback
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Funding access for different focus areas
  • Funding categories equivalent
  • Observations
  1. Historical Analysis & Comparisons
  2. Funding Access For Each Focus Area

Fund 7

Fund 7 funding access for different focus areas

PreviousFund 8NextCategorisation Setting Observations

Last updated 2 years ago

Funding access for different focus areas

Funding categories equivalent

After reviewing the data covered in the methodology for fund 7 a similar funding categorisation outcome could have been achieved with funding categories as an alternative categorisation approach by applying the following budget weightings:

  • Community & Outreach - 15%

  • Products & Integrations - 30%

  • Governance & Identity - 30%

  • Development & Infrastructure - 25%

Observations

Restrictive funding access

Fund 7 had far much more limiting access to funding for a number of proposal focus areas. The funding categories equivalent achieves more access for all of the proposal focus areas to a fairly significant degree. This could have helped with both competition and better variation of the proposals submitted to give the voter more options to choose from.

Few broad categorisations

The only main broad categorisations were Open Source Developer Ecosystem and DApps & Integrations however there total budget was still low. This contributed towards the lack of much funding being available for many of the areas that could be covered in the ecosystem.

Large usage of specific categorisations

There were a number of specific categorisations that meant limiting the types of proposals that could be submitted such as Boosting Cardano's DeFi, Lobbying for favorable legislation, Connecting Japan/日本 Community, Gamers On-Chained, Seeding Cardano's Grassroots DeFi, A.I. & SingularityNet a $5T market, Nation Building Dapps, Multilingual resources, Improve and Grow Auditability and Catalyst Accelerator & Mentors.

Categorisation interpretation is needed

Some categorisations such as Miscellaneous Challenge invite proposals based off them not being able to be submitted elsewhere. This adds large complexity as the proposer and voter need to be aware of which proposals should be in what categorisations amongst all the options to fulfil that requirement.