Fund 8 funding access for different focus areas
After reviewing the data covered in the methodology for fund 8 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 - 32%
- Governance & Identity - 26%
- Development & Infrastructure - 27%
Complexity from number of categorisations
There were 22 categorisations in fund 8. This made it more difficult to understand the range of categorisations available which makes it more difficult for proposers to know which categorisations to use when submitting their proposals.
In many cases across the categorisations certain types of proposals could be submitted in multiple categorisations. This adds complexity and an amount of game theory of where proposals should submit their proposals to maximise their chance of success. Allowing for this behaviour does not mean the best proposals will be funded and can lead to exploitation of unused categorisations.
Use of specific categorisations
Use of broad categorisations
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. Other interpretations that are needed are whether proposers are allowed to post a gaming related proposal in the DApps and Integrations even though there is Gamers On - Chained which is a more specific and relevant categorisation. This interpretation costs proposers, assessors and voters time.