This proposal outlines a structured, independent research and community consultation process to identify potential enhancements for the Project Catalyst award system and other funding mechanisms that might be created. Recognizing Catalyst's importance as a decentralized funding mechanism, the project seeks to leverage community knowledge and data to generate evidence-based recommendations for improvement, rather than proposing specific solutions upfront. The methodology employs a mixed-methods approach: quantitative analysis of historical Catalyst data (proposals, reviews, voting, outcomes) to identify trends; targeted qualitative research (semi-structured interviews, focus groups) with past proposers/implementers to explore experiences and context; and facilitation of an expert guiding committee (with diverse Cardano ecosystem representation) for strategic oversight. The process aims to enhance effectiveness without increasing bureaucracy. It complements existing work on voting schemes by seeking evidence on the practical merits of various approaches. The final output will be a synthesis report detailing findings and presenting well-supported, community-vetted recommendations for potential refinements to Catalyst's award system, potentially informing other future Cardano funding instruments as well.

While a valuable asset, Project Catalyst requires periodic, evidence-based refinement to ensure its award mechanisms remain optimal as it matures and scales. Currently, a structured approach, grounded in community insight and data, is needed to identify improvements regarding impact assessment (beyond outputs), voting dynamics (balancing stake with expertise), and institutional learning from past rounds, ensuring changes are well-founded rather than based on assumptions.

The primary benefit of this project is providing the Cardano community and its governance bodies with evidence-based, community-vetted recommendations for potentially enhancing the Project Catalyst award system. Instead of implementing changes based on assumptions, this research process leverages quantitative data and qualitative insights directly from the community (proposers, implementers, experts) to identify areas for improvement and assess potential solutions. Benefits accrue to:

• ADA Holders/Cardano Treasury: By grounding potential refinements in evidence, the project aims to ensure that future changes to Catalyst (a major treasury expenditure) are more likely to be effective, increasing the impact and efficiency of treasury funds.
• Project Proposers & Implementers: The research aims to identify ways to make the award system fairer, clearer, and potentially more supportive, benefiting those participating in Catalyst.
• Wider Cardano Community: A more effective and trusted Catalyst system strengthens the overall ecosystem's innovation engine and governance processes. The findings may also inform the design of other future funding mechanisms identified in the 2025 goals.

The demonstrated value lies in fostering data-driven improvements to a core ecosystem function, increasing the likelihood of funding impactful projects, enhancing accountability, and ensuring Catalyst evolves based on the collective wisdom and experience of its community.

The community will receive a comprehensive research report detailing findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses and presenting evidence-based, community-vetted recommendations for potential enhancements to the Project Catalyst award system.

MILESTONE 1 (Month 1): Research Plan Finalized & Committee Formed Output 1: Research Methodology & Work Plan. Proof 1: Document shared with/approved by key stakeholders (e.g., Intersect liaison). Output 2: Confirmed list of Expert Guiding Committee members. Proof 2: List shared/published via agreed channels.

MILESTONE 2 (Month 2-3): Quantitative Analysis & Qualitative Data Collection Underway Output 1: Preliminary Quantitative Analysis Report/Presentation. Proof 1: Report/Slides shared with Guiding Committee. Output 2: Confirmation of completed interviews/focus groups (e.g., anonymized participation log). Proof 2: Status update report shared with Guiding Committee.

MILESTONE 3 (Month 4): Qualitative Analysis & Initial Synthesis Output 1: Qualitative Data Analysis Report/Summary. Proof 1: Report shared with Guiding Committee. Output 2: Initial Synthesis Workshop with Guiding Committee. Proof 2: Workshop minutes/summary shared.

MILESTONE 4 (Month 5): Draft Research Report & Recommendations Output 1: Draft Comprehensive Research Report (integrating Quant, Qual, Committee insights). Proof 1: Draft report shared with Guiding Committee for feedback. Output 2: Presentation summarizing draft findings and potential recommendations. Proof 2: Slides shared/delivered to Guiding Committee.

MILESTONE 5 (Month 6): Final Research Report & Recommendations Delivered Output 1: Final Research Report and Recommendations document. Proof 1: Final document endorsed by Guiding Committee (where applicable) and delivered to key stakeholders/published via agreed channels. Output 2: Final Project Presentation to relevant community bodies (e.g., MCC). Proof 2: Presentation delivered (e.g., recording link, slides shared).

Total Budget: $150,000 USD (approx. 214,285 ADA) Preferred Contract Type: Fixed-price contract linked to milestone completion

MILESTONE 1 (Month 1): Research Plan Finalized & Committee Formed Budget: $20,000 USD (approx. 28,571 ADA) This covers the development of the research methodology, coordination with Intersect or other liaisons, and formation of the Expert Guiding Committee.

MILESTONE 2 (Months 2–3): Quantitative Analysis & Qualitative Data Collection Underway Budget: $35,000 USD (approx. 50,000 ADA) Supports data collection, early analysis, stakeholder engagement, and facilitation of interviews and/or focus groups. This is a resource-heavy phase requiring researcher time and data processing.

MILESTONE 3 (Month 4): Qualitative Analysis & Initial Synthesis Budget: $30,000 USD (approx. 42,857 ADA) Covers in-depth analysis of qualitative data and synthesis activities, including an interactive workshop with the Expert Committee to validate insights.

MILESTONE 4 (Month 5): Draft Research Report & Recommendations Budget: $30,000 USD (approx. 42,857 ADA) Includes preparation of the draft report integrating all data sources, stakeholder feedback, and a presentation summarizing findings.

MILESTONE 5 (Month 6): Final Research Report & Recommendations Delivered Budget: $35,000 USD (approx. 50,000 ADA) Covers final revisions, formatting, approval processes, and delivery of both the final report and a formal presentation to the Membership and Community Committee or other relevant stakeholders.

The project team is estimated to consist of four members (one project leader and three analysts) over the planned six-month duration.

PROJECT LEAD: Eduard Peris - PhD in War Studies (King’s College London), MIA (Columbia University). Managing Director of Blockchain for Impact Fund, founder of GeoAnalytics Center (Sahel). Over 15 years of African experience, including USAID/USIP funded projects. Expertise in complex environments, impact assessment, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies relevant to this proposal.

TEAM(Impact Plus): Brings a blend of blockchain sector experience and rigorous analytical capabilities:

• Cardano Ecosystem Familiarity: Responsible for data collection and analysis contributing to the Cardano Ecosystem Guide 2025, demonstrating direct experience working with Cardano data and understanding its landscape.
• Blockchain Application Analysis: Conducted studies on blockchain applications for international organizations, including the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), showcasing experience in applying analytical frameworks to blockchain contexts for institutional stakeholders.
• Research & Evaluation Expertise: Core team includes specialists adept at designing and implementing mixed-methods research and evaluation projects globally, ensuring methodological rigor. (Self-correction: Changed MEAL to broader Research & Evaluation)
• Technical Support & Ecosystem Understanding: Established presence in the blockchain sector (2+ years in Polygon ecosystem providing technical support via Polygon Impact Care Center), demonstrating understanding of ecosystem dynamics and project support needs. Web3 Knowledge: Deep understanding of industry trends relevant to evaluating Catalyst project contexts.

ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH:

• Financial Management: Commitment to rigorous budget transparency and reporting.
• Adaptive Management: Approach adapts based on stakeholder feedback (essential for collaboration with the Guiding Committee).
• Transparency/Communication: Commitment to frequent updates and open data policy where appropriate for research outputs.

The primary output of this project is a research report containing findings and community-vetted recommendations. The maintenance lies in the utility of these outputs. The report will be delivered to key stakeholders (e.g., Intersect committees, Cardano Foundation, Catalyst team) to inform their decision-making regarding future refinements to Project Catalyst or other funding mechanisms. The recommendations provide a foundation for subsequent governance actions or specific implementation proposals by relevant bodies, ensuring the research findings translate into potential long-term improvements.

While this specific proposal is newly formulated, the core issues it addresses – enhancing the effectiveness, transparency, and learning processes of Project Catalyst – align well with ongoing discussions and stated priorities within the Cardano community. Evidence for this alignment includes:

• Recurring Community & Stakeholder Discussions: The need for improvements in Catalyst's processes and accountability mechanisms is a recurring theme in community discussions. Furthermore, we have engaged in regular interactions with personnel at the Cardano Foundation regarding pathways to enhance the program.

• Intersect Membership and Community Committee (MCC) Focus: Improving Catalyst and demonstrating its impact has been a regular topic of discussion within the MCC, indicating relevance and interest among key community representatives engaged in governance oversight.

Yes, the project depends on the collaboration of the Project Catalyst team and the Intersect Membership and Community Committee. This engagement is essential for accessing contextual insights, validating research findings, ensuring the relevance of explored themes, and facilitating community buy-in for the process and eventual recommendations. While much historical project data is open-source, interpretation and ensuring the practicality of potential recommendations require this collaborative partnership. Access to anonymized or aggregated data beyond public sources, if feasible and appropriate, would enhance the quantitative analysis.