> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/fund-8.md).
# Fund 8
### Funding access for different focus areas
### **Funding categories equivalent**
After reviewing the [data covered in the methodology](/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/methodology-data-and-feedback.md) 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%
### 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**
There were a number of specific categorisations that meant limiting the types of proposals that could be submitted such as [Gamers On - Chained](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBqeS), [Lobbying for favorable legislation](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBqac), [Improve and Grow Auditability](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBrDj) or [Community Advisor Improvements](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBrSi).
**Use of broad categorisations**
A number of broad categorisations were present such as [DApps and Integrations](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBrBL), [Open Source Development Ecosystem](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBqsx) and [Developer Ecosystem](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBraj) which were more effective at allowing all forms of idea and innovation for a given proposal type rather than a subset.
**Categorisation interpretation is needed**
Some categorisations such as [Miscellaneous Challenge](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBqeP) 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](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBrBL) even though there is [Gamers On - Chained](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBqeS) which is a more specific and relevant categorisation. This interpretation costs proposers, assessors and voters time.
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:
```
GET https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/fund-8.md?ask=&goal=
```
`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.