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 8

Fund 8 funding access for different focus areas

PreviousFund 9NextFund 7

Last updated 2 years ago

Funding access for different focus areas

Funding categories equivalent

  • Community & Outreach - 15%

  • Products & Integrations - 32%

  • Governance & Identity - 26%

  • Development & Infrastructure - 27%

Observations

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.

Overlapping categorisations

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

After reviewing the 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:

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

A number of broad categorisations were present such as , and which were more effective at allowing all forms of idea and innovation for a given proposal type rather than a subset.

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. Other interpretations that are needed are whether proposers are allowed to post a gaming related proposal in the even though there is which is a more specific and relevant categorisation. This interpretation costs proposers, assessors and voters time.

data covered in the methodology
Gamers On - Chained
Lobbying for favorable legislation
Improve and Grow Auditability
Community Advisor Improvements
DApps and Integrations
Open Source Development Ecosystem
Developer Ecosystem
Miscellaneous Challenge
DApps and Integrations
Gamers On - Chained