The challenge is about develop a governance mechanism for Catalyst so as to attract more proposers, ADA holders and CA/vCA and motivate them to be active in Catalyst activities. This is a potential challenge because it an undeniable fact that currently the quality of proposals and CA comments still have much room for improvement. Especially the fact the total volume of Ada participating in voting for project selection is incredibly low (Fund 7 only ~12% of Ada participated in voting). There must be something in the governance that should be changed or improved because if we want to change the outcome, we should try to change the method to do it. Therefore, having this challenge in Fund 9 can help to find some ways to improve those limitations.

As a community advisor myself, I have noticed in previous funds that the participation in the whole Project Catalyst process has been very low when it comes to the amount of ADA that "are voting". I can see that it would useful to try to attract more people to vote and as more people will vote, more CAs and vCAs are going to make assessments and the proposers will be more competitive when it comes to making excellent proposals. For this reason, i can see how this proposal would have a societal impact on the whole ecosystem. It is also a proposal very close to the Catalyst idea, with the vision of developing a governance mechanism for Catalyst.

Challenge question how can we develop a governance mechanism for Catalyst to attract great proposals in order to bring the best value to Cardano ecosystem?. Challenge for fund 9 Catalyst Governance Innovation, this is essential to work towards (Increased number of high-quality proposals, percentage of Ada participating in voting in favor/against the selection of projects is approved. increase). In previous funds, there were many controversies about negative, counterfeit and poor quality situations of CA/vCA, the mechanism of fund allocation was not tight and slow. I agree with this challenge proposal

This challenge aims to improve Catalyst for all stakeholders participating in the project, attracting more qualified proposers, increasing voter participation in general and improving the quality of the service provided by CAs/vCAs. This is an important theme for Cardano's mission because since the beginning of Catalyst the community has increasingly assumed the role of protocol development, creation and governance. Having a challenge dedicated to this topic can help fund teams that are already working in this niche and increase their efforts. The challenge is within the Catalyst Fund9 Challenge Setting Strategic Goals, more precisely item 1(Prepare a group of people willing and able to make contributions to the ecosystem).

In preparing this proposal, the team identified three issues that clearly deserve to be addressed by the Catalyst community, and based on this, the team decided to submit the challenge proposal for Fund 8 for community consideration. Based on my analysis, I must state I am opposed to having this challenge for the next fund. Here is why. In a few words I can tell the voters that this challenge has a broad scope and in case it is selected it may be contained by proposals that do not necessarily point to the same direction. Essentially, the team that drafted this proposal proposes to revamp Catalyst's governance mechanisms, however, from reading the Challenge Setup, I can infer that the root causes of the problems it argues for have different roots. Furthermore, when it talks about attracting high quality proposers and increasing participation from ADA holders, to me this is a matter of outreach. The issue of outreach deserves separate treatment, and for that reason we have faced obstacles in the past, as well as two competing challenges today. The third problem he mentions is the problem we have had associated with fraudulent CAs and vCAs, this has a very different root than the previous one, in fact we have a challenge today (community advisors improvement) that seeks among other things to address this. In addition to collaborations that are occurring between the CA community and IOG to improve the systematic, and thus reduce the risk of participation of fraudulent agents or increase the probability of detection of them.

The key metrics are there and are measuring the outcome so they are considered correct in my opinion. What i would like to be added and I personally consider very useful to exist on every proposal, and in fact a Fund 9 challenge one, is to add numbers to the existing metrics. For that reason i would remove one point because it is not mentioned as to how many high-quality proposals are there going to be needed and one point for the percentage of Ada participating in voting for/against a project selection.

The measurement indicators for the proposed recommendations are very complete, clear and reasonable. In order to receive votes from Ada holders, the project itself must be excellent and reach Ada holders well. Therefore, proponents will find the best way to present their proposals to the community in order to get funding and maximize their benefits.It will market Cardano to the community organically.

The success criteria include improvement on proposal and percentage of Ada participating in voting for/against project selection but is missing about develop the quality and quantity CA/vCA. The suggested metrics to measure progress in addressing the challenge are set quite well, but I'm not sure about these metrics: "Talent around the world comes to Cardano ecosystem?" and "Catalyst Fund becomes a pool of talent?" How can we say which one is "talent"? These metrics, therefore, is not clear enough.

The two items defined for indicating success are relevant, but they would not be effective indicators for evaluating success.

"The number of high-quality proposal is increased. The percentage of Ada participating in voting for/against project selection is increased."

How will the quality of proposals be measured? This is not clear. If quality were associated with the score of funded/approved proposals, this would be a more conclusive definition.

Community participation by voting can increase for n reasons, how to associate? Correlation is not always causality.

Several key metrics were defined to assess the success of the challenge.

The first two repeat the same definitions used in the definition of success and would need to be more objective for a more objective assessment.

The third would measure the number of funded proposals in relation to the total of proposals, but it would be important to know the quality of these proposals (perhaps associating the score).

The fourth metric would only indicate an increase in the number of funded proposals (any challenge approved opens space for proposals to be funded, so this metric does not make sense)

The other metrics seem appropriate for evaluating the performance of the challenge, but I would like to see more objectivity in them.

The challenge team decided to approach the description of suggested success metrics in the form of questions, and I have no objection to this as long as these questions provide prospective proposers with feasible suggested metrics that they can measure against. However, I find a large number of these questions and very difficult to measure, which adds a layer of confusion for prospective proposers and one of difficulty for the community to evaluate, vote on, and audit proposals. My score for this section is 3.