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

  • 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

Large usage of specific categorisations

Categorisation interpretation is needed

After reviewing the 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:

The only main broad categorisations were and 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.

There were a number of specific categorisations that meant limiting the types of proposals that could be submitted such as , , , , , , , , and .

Some categorisations such as 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.

data covered in the methodology
Open Source Developer Ecosystem
DApps & Integrations
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
Catalyst Accelerator & Mentors
Miscellaneous Challenge