Nothing came up for

Products & Integrations

$2,350,000.00 Requested
Problem:

What new products and integrations can be implemented to bring impactful use cases to the Cardano ecosystem that help drive more adoption?

Challenge: F8: Fund9 challenge setting
funded Awarded 18.359% of the fund.
Community Advisor Reviews:
5 (12)
Yes Votes:
₳ 165,086,738
No Votes:
₳ 20,049,656
Unique Wallets:
1190

  • funding-categories-wide-243708

Why is it important? Cardano needs new innovations for the ecosystem to reach its potential and offer society alternatives to existing centralised systems

What does success look like? An increasing number of products or integrations that offer new solutions for people to interact with and benefit from whilst using Cardano

Key Metrics to measure Tracking success for this category will mean:

Increasing the number products available for the community to use that help to enrich the ecosystem with new use cases. Increase the number of integrations that bring existing solutions together for a more seamless and connected experience between different products. Increased quality of existing products & integrations through suggested improvements that is supported by customer feedback or increased usage by the community.

For individual success metrics for the different types of proposal that can be included please refer to the suggested challenge brief success metrics ideas.

Challenge brief —— FUNDING CATEGORIES BACKGROUND ——

Funding Categories is an approach to doing funding categorisation that will welcome all ideas, maximize the amount of ideas submitted and reduce the effort for all stakeholders in the Catalyst process.

Funding categories also help remove the existing issues with challenge settings. They help to prevent duplicate challenge settings, remove challenges created by self interest, reduce the need for deep knowledge of the ecosystem from challenge proposal teams and also removes an easy entry point for malicious actors.

The full documentation for Catalyst Funding Categories can be found here: https://catalyst-swarm.gitbook.io/catalyst-funding-categories/

7 funding categories have been documented to cover all forms of ideas and proposals. All proposals can be found here - https://linktr.ee/cardanopace

The budget weighting for the 7 categories has been determined using a community governance process. The voting results for this process can be found here - https://catalyst-swarm.gitbook.io/catalyst-funding-categories/community-votes/fund-8-categories-budget-weighting/voting-results-fund-8

————

Overview

Products & Integrations is focused on the following areas:

Creation or improvement of different products that provide value to the Cardano community and wider ecosystem. Integrations with other existing services, products and protocols that improve the end user experience whether thats giving the user more options or making something easier to use that benefits the wider ecosystem.

Why this category is important

Cardano needs a thriving ecosystem of different products and integrations for the community to use that increasingly become the better alternatives over current centralised providers.

The more interesting and useful the products and integrations are that can be built in the ecosystem the more reasons people have to interact with the Cardano blockchain that can help further drive more adoption, feedback, growth and even more innovations.

Types of proposals to include

Hardware - Hardware wallets, Local ATMs for interacting with the blockchain, others… Physical products - Tokenised housing as a Cardano native asset, International crypto headquarters and liason office on every continent, others… DeFi - Stable coins, DEXs, borrow & lending, synthetic assets, others… Gaming - Open world games, card games, RPG, others… Nation governance systems - New governance systems for nation states Environment - Solutions that help to solve environment issues Transport & logistics Social media Marketplaces Many others - Any other idea, product or integration that someone thinks should be built in the Cardano ecosystem!

Potential success metrics for proposal types

This list is not exhaustive but does provides some ideas for proposers to consider.

Hardware - Number of items sold, number of total users, number of interactions with hardware solution Physical products - Number of products tokenised as a native asset, Number of people using physical solution DeFi - Total value locked, total number of users, number of active daily / weekly / monthly users Gaming - Number of players, player income generated (if play to earn), qualitative feedback on game experience Nation governance systems - Amount of population onboarded, amount of costs saved due to new solution, security difficulty improvements over previous approach Environment - Total number of users, total CO2 sequestered, amount of awareness being produced, number of people changing a environmentally damaging habit Transport & logistics - Total number of packages tracked, Number of counterfeit items prevented Social media - Total number of users, number of meaningful interactions Marketplaces - Total number of users, number of transactions performed Many others - Proposers can add in whatever metrics or success criteria make sense for their own project!

Considerations for proposers

Existing products or integrations - What products or integrations already exist in the ecosystem? What are the core differences between the proposal being presented and those existing ones and why will that provide impact to the ecosystem? Technical requirements - Does the Cardano ecosystem have the right tools, libraries and SDKs for the idea to be feasible? What needs to be introduced or improved for the proposal to fully reach its potential? Ecosystem maturity requirements - Why is this product or integration suitable for execution right now? Are there enough pieces of infrastructure, applications or other integrations available that would be needed for this suggested proposal to have a strong chance of gaining adoption? For instance, if you were making a professional social network DApp, do the right identity tools and wallets exist to make a professional network feasible?

Community Advisor Reviews

Addresses Challenge

5 / 5
4 Reviews

Does the proposal effectively addresses the challenge?

Community Reviews (4)

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

This challenge is set for products (dApps, hardware and more) and integrations (existing business, blockchains and web2 apps). It is part of a bigger holistic set of proposals put forth by the PACE team who have worked in a co-creative process with the community members during town halls and through Telegram groups, gathering feedback and from as many as possible. This has resulted in 7 challenges that seek to be non-overlapping and that cover all types of proposals that one can imagine. The idea is that this will remove strategic elements of where to submit a proposal and it also avoid stifling of competition due to challenges only be reserved for a very narrow set of proposals. The alignment score is set based on two sets of metrics that define whether a given challenge is critical to achieving Cardano’s mission: the fund9 strategic goals and the guiding questions for challenge setting.

Strategic goals. As this challenge is very broad, it naturally will bring in contributors to the ecosystem. However, it is not directly tied to making Cardano an open source ecosystem. It will, however, massively grow the dapp and developer ecosystem. The latter by the fact that more products means that there are more role models to follow when developing products.

Guiding questions. Again, the wide scope means that voters will be exposed a plethora of interesting proposals and some of which are sure to make them excited. However, the drawback of having such a large challenge is that it also makes it hard for voters to compartmentalise it. They will see a list of 200 proposals, vote for the 30 first and then possibly leave the voting app. This can of course be solved through improving the voting app so that some form of filtering/tags can be used by the voter. In terms of springboarding cardano adoption, this challenge does an excellent job. The sheer possibilities that are enabled by the proposal and the competitive nature of having broader challenges means that we are more likely to efficiently use the funds and channel it to the proposals that are of the highest quality.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

This category would be very valuable to strengthen the ecosystem. This category provides many new ideas that have a positive impact on the ecosystem. It ties in with the Dapps & Integrations challenge that now exists. It is an important category for Cardano and also fulfills fund9’s strategic goals.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

This challenge is part of a group of challenges that got called Challenge Categories. These “challenge categories” provide Catalyst with a fresh approach to managing challenges. Instead of competing between challenges that may overlap or be incompatible, the emphasis is on the preparation, analysis, and selection of the most appropriate proposals. I see it as another experiment on the way to Voltaire. With Catalyst’s willingness to experiment, I’m inclined to try this approach for the next fund and see how it goes. In terms of the description of the challenge question, I think it could have been better worded. Considering how it emphasizes the “NEW” aspect, and I think it could have included products that need improvement or those in other ecosystems that want to migrate to Cardano. Althoug in the “overview” section describes “creating or improving” various products, so I believe is only a matter of better description of the question because it could be limiting for those teams that already have a product or MVP and find the question somewhat limiting for the solution they present.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

This is the second challenge in a bigger idea to bring more balance and simplicity to Catalyst. When we look at this challenge and the links provided we get a good amount of research that went into creating the 7 proposals in total we see today as challenges. This one in particular feels like a re-imaged Dapps & Integrations as we see it today. As we’ve seen in the past funds a challenge like this brings a lot of ideas to the table that boosts the ecosystem. This is crucial for Cardano and falls within the strategic goals set for Fund 9.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Feasibility

5 / 5
4 Reviews

Given experience and plan presented is likely that this proposal will be implemented successfully?

Community Reviews (4)

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

When I read the information and documentation to determine these challenge settings, I am sure that the community supports this challenge and has a good chance of success. There will also be more than enough proposals that fit within this challenge, so I’m not worried about that question.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

Given the information available and the research that went into creating the different challenge settings PACE it suggesting, I feel confident that the community would be able to address this challenge. As I’ve said in the previous rationale this is a continuum of Dapps & Integrations. Looking at the scope the challenge holds I am sure enough proposals would be filed in this challenge. However, I must note that looking at the other proposals submitted in Fund9 Challenge settings we can see that there are 2 proposals remarkably similar. In the other proposal, there has been an attempt to merge the 2 challenges together but the PACE team has declined this on the grounds that the other is a copy of this one. As a CA I can only conclude that this proposal has been filed 3 weeks before the other one. My conclusion on this is if the other team was concerned as PACE is about 2 proposals being Funded they would have a withdrawal of their proposal because they filed it last minute and PACE spoke out to them. PACE even said that they have no intention of being in the challenge team for this challenge. Which is a downer because PACE is fully known within the community.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

As a CA/vCA from the past two funds and proposer and winner of several projects, I am aware of the many innovations that take pace in Catalyst. There are employees at IOG, Tesla and top financial institutions as well as established academics that apply for funding. There is ample talent and this fund will only make top-tier teams more interested in seeking grants from Catalyst to develop on Cardano.

The challenge budget is set at $2.35M which is a moderate amount given that dApps and integrations from this past fund had $2.5M, and given that many more types of proposals can fit in this challenge.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

From the start of Catalyst, we’ve had proposals and challenges that reflect the kind of projects we expect to find in this category. As of today, big names such as Liquid, Maladex, Minswap, Nami, etc. Are part of the Cardano ecosystem and have been allocated Treasury budgets. Additionally, the challenges associated with proposals expected in this challenge category have the most requests for funds. Due to this, I am fully confident that we are prepared to meet this challenge category. Regarding the requested budget, it seems reasonable to me. According to what I understand, it will be adjusted according to the amount determined for fund 9. It was possible for me to review the supporting documentation for the selection of the percentages of each category. All I can say is congratulations!

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Auditability

5 / 5
4 Reviews

Does the proposal provides sufficient information to assess and audit progress and completion?

Community Reviews (4)

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

It’s obvious to me that the verifiability is no issue here, as the documentation shows why the challenge is necessary, you can clearly see this in the KPIs of the challenge. It is also clear what conditions the challenge has for new proposals. All information and documentation are available to measure the results.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

For Veriiability, there is not much to tell. As stated above PACE did their research on why this challenge is needed and what falls within the challenge. This is reflected in the success criteria and key metrics of the challenge. All the research is available and provided with links in the challenge.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

The challenge lists several metrics that could be used for each of the 9 suggested directions that can be taken within this challenge. For example total number of users, “meaningful interactions” and (DeFi) total value locked. The challenge briefing contain valuable considerations that I believe are worth highlighting as good practice. For example, it asks proposers to consider what products and integrations already exist, what SDKs would be needed for their proposal to be feasible and is this proposal suitable for execution right now or are more tools/infrastructure needed?

As a CA who has now read 20+ or so challenge settings, this is amongst the most well-written and thoughtful ones that I have seen.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to

Commenter gravatar
April 13, 2022

Developing a set of success metrics for a challenge category such as this is a challenging task due to the wide variety of past challenges and proposals that are expected to be contained within it. Hence, the team that prepared this proposal provided a non-exhaustive list of metrics according to the types of proposals that might be submitted, and I think that they provide a useful overview, providing a clear example of the types of metrics that proposers can expect, while at the same time clarifying to the community what type of metrics should be expected. Moreover, I find that the last additional section of the document, entitled “Considerations for proposers,” contains great value as it gives both direction and limits to what type of proposals should be considered.

Confirming your humanity

Write comment

Replying to