Detailed Plan

We intend to use the 1:1 DApp being developed in tandem with Gimbalabs as part of the feedback process. The feedback given by and to the Community Advisors could be tracked within this to create an anonymous but verifiable reputation for community advisors. This will incentivize advisors to better serve the community as a whole as it will be a trackable reputation that will in turn help them to get funds for the work they have done. This will also elicit better communication between advisors and the community which should help proposers with how to manage their proposals for an increased chance at funding.

We also intend to facilitate questions from the community available to everyone including the advisors to answer. This will help community members better gauge which representatives they align with which when taken together should represent the community in total. This will allow the community to better address current pain points and find solutions.

Problem: How do we encourage people to participate in decision making?

Solution: Community advisors feedback should be tracked to ensure quality feedback is being given to proposers to help their proposal pass. By doing this both advisors and proposers are rewarded through ADA if the proposal gets funding.

Problem: How do we ensure the group of decision makers is diverse and accessible to newcomers?

Solution: Accessibility of the decision makers is immediate since the 1:1 DApp allows for interaction between Advisors and proposers as well as a Reputation based system revolving around how well these interactions were. This allows for transparency as well as ensuring concerns are addressed.

Problem: How will we include the community in decision making? How can we ensure that the Catalyst process keeps iterating to improve?

Solution: By allowing the community to create and vote on pain points as well as remedies for them, it would ensure that we find and address the biggest issues quickly. This is a community centered approach that ensures they are always in the decision making process. This also ensures that we keep iterating to improve the process.

Budget Breakdown

4000 would go to training individuals in the PPBL

6000 would go to development of the software including salaries

KPIs

Number of responses received as feedback from every round

Percentage of the community voting on responses

Actions taken to remedy pain points

Number of feedback given for each advocate

Overall Advisor rating vs. Reelection rate

Difference in proposal confidence rating between current and future Funding rounds