Methodology, Data & Feedback

Documentation for how the funding access percentages were derived

Funding is split between a number of categorisations that currently get defined each funding round. Each categorisation represents a percentage of the total funding amount available. Each proposal can have funding access ranging from none, partial through to full access within each of those categorisations.


All the tagging data that was created for use in the images can be found here:


Please provide any feedback or suggest any changes or improvements in the Telegram group -


1. Tag proposal focus areas with a suitable colour depending on the access to funding

For each proposal focus area an estimate is given for the amount of funding access it has in each of the categorisations. These are estimates and are colour coded based on the following:

  • Red: Little to none

  • Orange: Low

  • Yellow: Moderate

  • Green: High

2. Add percentage value based on rough access

Based on the rough access guide above the following percentages are applied. As an example for the below percentages, if one categorisation had 5% total allocation and a proposal focus area had low access it would have 25% of that allocation 5% which would be 1.25% that would contribute towards the total funding access percentage for that proposal focus area. Percentage of categorisation funding access based on rough access tag given:

  • Red: 0%

  • Orange: 25%

  • Yellow: 50%

  • Green: 100%

3. Sum the percentage values for each proposal focus area from each categorisation to get a total funding access percentage across the total fund amount

The total access to funding for a proposal focus area is created by combining all the percentage values of access a proposal focus area has to each categorisation. The following results then determine the final colour for funding access:

  • Red: Little to none, 0-5%

  • Orange: Low, 5-15%

  • Yellow: Moderate, 15-25%

  • Green: High, 25-50%

  • Dark Blue: Very High, 50%+

Rough estimations

The first step of tagging proposal focus areas with a suitable colour depending on the access to funding are rough estimations.

Categorisation interpretation

Challenge settings result in categorisations that often change in every funding round. This results in a collection of challenges that are worded differently. Some have limited information where as others may be more detailed. Some may be vague in specifying what should be included and others more precise. In many instances this can lead to complexities around interpretation such as follows:

  • Cross-Chain Collaboration - Cross chain collaboration looks to bridge over projects from other ecosystems to Cardano as encourage new redeployments onto Cardano. Cardano has native projects building only on Cardano, cross chain projects deploying on multiple chains and cross chains projects looking to migrate over to Cardano. Due to this wide range of project backgrounds that could exist the ones which are cross chain proposals only represent a subset of the proposal focus areas. For instance cross chain identity tools will only represent some of the proposal focus areas for ‘Identity tools & software’ as many of the identity tools & software can be built on Cardano itself without first being built elsewhere.

  • Grow Africa, Grow Cardano - Location focussed challenges such as grow Africa, grow latin America or grow India result in a situation where only a subset of proposal focus areas can be submitted. These categorisations welcome any idea that is focussed on solutions and initiatives in that given location. This means that the categorisation is broad in the terms of the proposal focus areas however the location focus also means only a subset of the total amount could be submitted. As an example any efforts for ‘Government outreach & engagement’ related proposals would only be able to be submitted for countries within Africa rather than other locations.

Estimation of proposal type coverage

When trying to determine what percentage of the proposal type is covered within a given categorisation there is a need to consider the breadth of what types of proposals could exist under the umbrella of that proposal type. An example of this includes:

  • Hackathons - Hackathons can exist for Plutus for core infrastructure, on top of community infrastructure solutions such as an API to build on their solutions or to integrate other software solutions that use Cardano. Hackathons can also be just for idea flow and trying out new ideas. Giving a high percentage for the hackathon proposal type for a categorisation means that all these different ideas should be viable. If they are not then a lower percentage should be given. As an example for Cross-Chain Collaboration the hackathons would be a subset of all potential hackathons as they would need to focus on the cross chain focus.

Last updated