IMPACT Rating: 2

• This proposal has good intent, however it fails to really address the question in the Fund 10 rules about how does this project directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem. The answer to this question was basically 'we will put your logo on our materials', which in my opinion does not qualify as "be for the betterment of the Cardano ecosystem".

​

FEASIBILITY Rating: 2

• The authors requested 45000 ADA at the top of the proposal, however in their budget, they state that they would require 95,000 EURO to complete this project? They should have made that much clearer because it is not explicitly clear. They state that additional grants and funding can cover some of the costs, but that needs to be explained and broken down if that is true. I have low confidence in these numbers.

​

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 2

• I really believe the intent of this project is good, and we should try to push efforts for proper natural asset management and reports that demonstrate how web3 and blockchain technology can address this, however this proposal was very wordy to read through, but seems to lack more detail as to HOW it will benefit the Cardano ecosystem. Using metrics of success such as "Increase in the market and increase in the number of users of Cardano’s top RealFi projects" while not presenting a means for how this has anything to do with your reports, or how you will measure this, doesn't convince me that these very lofty goals can be addressed with only 45,000 ADA requested and be completed in 6 months.

IMPACT Rating: 2

• This proposal has good intent, however in my opinion fails to really address the question in the Fund 10 rules about how does this project directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem. In my opinion, it is valuable to bring new users to the ecosystem if we can define more measurable outcomes for how they are engaging. If we are simply giving each user 2 ADA and now there are 150 new wallets in the ecosystem but they don't use the blockchain, then what have we accomplished? We need more evidence that spending Treasury funds to bring people into this space is "for the betterment of the Cardano ecosystem", and bringing active users through more measurable outcomes that just having a wallet and 2 ADA. What else will be done to get them engaged, and what is the actual value added back to the ecosystem for this not insignificant investment beyond having a few new wallets in the ecosystem?

​

FEASIBILITY Rating: 2

• This project appears highly feasible and the proposer should be able to achieve the required success. This is all assuming that the number of people attending their seminars is what they claim. It will be necessary to have video confirmation of the numbers being claimed.

​

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 2

• To reiterate my point above for the benefit to the Cardano ecosystem, this proposal has good intent, however in my opinion fails to really address the question in the Fund 10 rules about how does this project directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem. In my opinion, it is valuable to bring new users to the ecosystem if we can define more measurable outcomes for how they are engaging. If we are simply giving each user 2 ADA and now there are 150 new wallets in the ecosystem but they don't use the blockchain, then what have we accomplished? We need more evidence that spending Treasury funds to bring people into this space is "for the betterment of the Cardano ecosystem", and bringing active users through more measurable outcomes that just having a wallet and 2 ADA. What else will be done to get them engaged, and what is the actual value added back to the ecosystem for this not insignificant investment beyond having a few new wallets in the ecosystem? For this reason, I do not believe the value proposition matches the investment.

IMPACT Rating: 3

• This project could have high potential given that a rigorous study of how the Cardano blockchain might address some of the shortcomings of transparency of the current carbo n credit marketplace. In general, it would seem that more studies that address issues like this in various sectors of the economy would be necessary to further make the case for blockchain technology. With this particular proposal, I fail to have a clear understanding any deeper into what areas of the carbon credit marketplace blockchain technology might be useful that warrants paying for a study? Transparency is a very real but broad term and if the point of this feasibility study is go out and talk to experts without defining some areas where blockchain may really provide value, this seems like it could be a risky expense of the community funds in my opinion. For example, what does this actually mean: "The use of blockchain technology, specifically Cardano, appears to be a good fit to ensure transparency across the entire value chain. This would allow projects to “market” themselves as high quality carbon credit producers, and it would allow industries/buyers to select the projects that are right for them. ". More detail would make me more confident in this study to understand where blockchain might be leveraged, and then have industry experts provide additional feedback and resources to come to a more confident conclusion.

​

FEASIBILITY Rating: 4

• I believe this team is capable of accomplishing what they claim to, given they have developed high quality tools for the Cardano community. I just don't have high confidence in the outcome of the proposal fundamentally given it is fairly vague in its objectives.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 3

• I repeat my points about the IMPACT of this proposal. It could be a really valuable study, however, the merits of preforming such a study have not been presented to me in a way that makes me confident in spending community funds for this effort without providing more evidence into how exactly the Cardano blockchain might be leveraged for the carbon credit marketplaces, and using industry experts to further vet the details.

IMPACT Rating: 3

• This seems like a project that could be useful to improve our understanding of which Catalyst funded projects building on Cardano are successful long term. It plans to build extra tools on top of Catalyst that can be adopted and used in the future by Catalyst. However, the authors don't state anything about whether or not this would actually be adopted by Project Catalyst? Would this actually be implemented by Project Catalyst if successful? Does Project Catalyst have other plans? That seems to be the most important question here to ensure that funds going towards this would be adopted by Project Catalyst so funds aren't spent on efforts that ultimately have no plans to be incorporated into Project Catalyst ultimately.

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 3

• I am skeptical that all of the work to aggregate completed and incomplete projects will only take 50 hours. And the approach to do this hasn't been laid out very clearly and what outputs would be presented in their analysis.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 3

• As I stated in the IMPACT section, However, the proposal seems like an intriguing way to ensure projects building on Cardano are funded and continue to develop beyond the Project Catalyst timeline, however the authors don't state anything about whether or not this would actually be adopted by Project Catalyst? Would this actually be implemented by Project Catalyst if successful? Does Project Catalyst have other plans? That seems to be the most important question here to ensure that funds going towards this would be adopted by Project Catalyst so funds aren't spent on efforts that ultimately have no plans to be incorporated into Project Catalyst ultimately.

IMPACT Rating: 3

• Developing a implementations for the mini protocols that Cardano operates on seems like something that could provide great value to the Cardano community. However, I wish there was more justification for why Zig would be implemented for the broader community to understand. Zig appears to offer performances increases, memory safety, and best practices, however it is a very new programming language that I hadn't heard of until reading this proposal. Why is it so necessary to develop of this language as compared to other programming languages? What advantages are there to using this over Rust and so many other fast programming languages that makes this so advantageous?

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 5

• Harmonic Labs is a premier group in the ecosystem that has contributed greatly to the ecosystem and is entirely capable of delivering on promises they make to the ecosystem. I have no doubts in their ability to deliver on promised work.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 3

• I will provide the same response as for the IMPACT section for the VALUE FOR MONEY proposition. What is the actual value benefit to using Zig over other languages? Why is it so necessary to develop of this language as compared to other programming languages? What advantages are there to using this over Rust and so many other fast programming languages that makes this so advantageous?

IMPACT Rating: 2

• This proposal attempts to address a much needed solution on Cardano, which is defining whether assets are considered a security by the Howey Test. However, given the regulatory uncertainty that exists in the United States and around the world in the cryptocurrency industry and continued scrutiny of what constitutes passing the Howey Test (look at the XRP case), I don't feel that this will accurately determine the validity of tokens and tokenized assets on the Cardano blockchain without laws and regulatory guidelines that truly will determine whether assets are securities or not, and therefore could be a risky investment of community funds.

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 3

• The project appears fairly straightforward and the proposer is qualified to carry out the work and given the budget requested. I just feel that the actual study may be premature without more concrete regulatory guidelines.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 2

• As for the IMPACT section, given the regulatory uncertainty that exists in the United States and around the world in the cryptocurrency industry and continued scrutiny of what constitutes passing the Howey Test (look at the XRP case), I don't feel that this will accurately determine the validity of tokens and tokenized assets on the Cardano blockchain without laws and regulatory guidelines that truly will determine whether assets are securities or not, and therefore could be a risky investment of community funds.

IMPACT Rating: 4

• This proposal seems to have high positive IMPACT for the ecosystem, especially considering the amount of funds requested. Having DAO tooling on the blockchain, with additional functionality for SPOs to be able to be able to poll delegators and allow delegators to have some say in decisions their SPOs make seems like a valuable tool for bringing more user adoption into the Cardano ecosystem. The description of this tooling was a little vague, however the intended outcome seems pretty well described.

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 5

• The team is well known in the ecosystem, and already appears to have a DAO tooling website that is very appealing and easy to use. They seem well equipped to carry this out.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 5

• For the same reasons as IMPACT, this team is requesting what appears to be a reasonable amount of ADA for the amount of work that would seem to be needed. This project also brings nice utility to Cardano in my opinion that could further user adoption if there are more ways delegators can interface with SPOs and have a say, or for SPOs to incentivize delegators.

IMPACT Rating: 4

• This project seems very ambitious and addresses a much needed problem in the Cardano ecosystem - bridging SSI into web2 and the broader ecosystem as a whole. This individual seems capable of making significant progress, given they are an Atala Prism Pioneer and know the subject matter well. If standards could be set for APIs that bridge identity with web3 and web2, this could be incredibly valuable for the Cardano ecosystem and bring massive use case to the ecosystem. The only thing I wish was expanded on more was how this approach may differ from existing approaches? Are there any? How does this build upon the work of Atala Prism? Does Atala Prism also not attempt to tackle this problem?

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 5

• This individual seems capable of making significant progress, given they are an Atala Prism Pioneer and know the subject matter well. They also have extensive experience working in this area in the web2 space at AWS. They seem very capable of addressing the stated problems in the time frame specified.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 4

• As stated in IMPACT, this individual seems very capable of creating API standard that help bridge SSIs with web2 and web3. For the amount of work, the price for the labor and expertise seems like a good use of community funds. It's also nice to see Atala Prism pioneers attempting to continue to contribute back to the ecosystem with their knowledge gained from that program. It seems a good use of community funds. The only thing I wish was expanded on more was how this approach may differ from existing approaches? Are there any? How does this build upon the work of Atala Prism? Does Atala Prism also not attempt to tackle this problem?

IMPACT Rating: 2

• This proposal has good intent, however in my opinion fails to really address the question in the Fund 10 rules about how does this project directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem. In my opinion, it is valuable to bring new users to the ecosystem if we can define more measurable outcomes for how they are engaging. How many users in the Vietnam Cardano ecosystem are there that would use a tool like this? We need more evidence that spending Treasury funds to bring people into this space is "for the betterment of the Cardano ecosystem", and bringing active users through more measurable outcomes than spending treasury funds for translating content if there aren't ways to attempt to quantify the impact. What else will be done to get them engaged, and what is the actual value added back to the ecosystem for this not insignificant investment beyond having a few more new wallets in the ecosystem? 

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 1

• This proposal has really good intent and I would give this more ratings, except in the exact words of the applicant - "To be honest, my capabilities is not oustanding." This gives me 1 star confidence in the applicants abilities to fulfil their proposed plans.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 2

• To reiterate my point above for the benefit to the Cardano ecosystem, this proposal has good intent, however in my opinion fails to really address the question in the Fund 10 rules about how does this project directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem. In my opinion, it is valuable to bring new users to the ecosystem if we can define more measurable outcomes for how they are engaging. How many users in the Vietnam Cardano ecosystem are there that would use a tool like this? We need more evidence that spending Treasury funds to bring people into this space is "for the betterment of the Cardano ecosystem", and bringing active users through more measurable outcomes than spending treasury funds for translating content if there aren't ways to attempt to quantify the impact. What else will be done to get them engaged, and what is the actual value added back to the ecosystem for this not insignificant investment beyond having a few more new wallets in the ecosystem? For this reason, I do not believe the value proposition matches the investment.

IMPACT Rating: 3

• This proposed project aims to provide an open-sourced voting system for DAOs and NFT projects to be able to let their users participate in voting in a non web3 way since the votes will not be stored on the blockchain. I felt this proposal deserves 3 stars out of 5 because this really is just a simple web2 solution that may have IMPACT on the Cardano ecosystem but again is more of a web2 solution and not necessarily building on top of web3 as far as I can tell. This project was also fairly vague about how this system would be designed and deployed compared to other proposals I have read.

 

FEASIBILITY Rating: 2

• The developer appears to be capable of developing the tool they claim to build. However, the proposal lacked more detail as to how the system would be built out. Also, stating "Research into ideal technical setup (1 week)" is wrong in my opinion. You should already have researched how this will be accomplished and not state you will do your homework after getting approved.

 

VALUE FOR MONEY Rating: 3

• For the same reasons as IMPACT section, I felt this proposal deserves 3 stars out of 5 because this really is just a simple web2 solution that may have IMPACT on the Cardano ecosystem but again is more of a web2 solution and not necessarily building on top of web3 as far as I can tell. This project was also fairly vague about how this system would be designed and deployed compared to other proposals I have read. In addition, I don't have high confidence in proposals that state that they will do your homework after getting approved. You should already have researched how this will be accomplished.