This proposal is interesting, the idea is to create short videos/podcasts, in English, summarizing 25% of the proposals from each funding fund. The authors' justification for the need for such a project is that there are many, many proposals, people generally don't have time to follow everything and having such content summaries would boost participation in Catalyst, as people would have a more practical way of getting to know them. , at least a part, of what is done here. I agree with this thought and I think that it can be very beneficial indeed, and may correspond to some of the challenge's objectives, such as bringing new participants to the Cardano community, new developers, etc, forming new hubs, but I don't think it contemplates the goal of democratize access for non-English speakers. I think they would democratize access to Cardano for a more general English-speaking audience, from blockchain beginners to more experienced, as such content would be made accessible. Therefore, I believe the partial impact of what was asked in the challenge. It would be very incredible if this same idea were taken to other languages, that is, to create short audiovisual content that summarizes/explains some proposals from the funding funds, in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Vietnamese… That way yes, I believe that would hit the nail on the head with what we're aiming for here.

I believe this proposal is well suited to the objectives of the challenge. The proposal presents a very real problem that a lot of people are interested in Cardano but do not have the time to learn, making it difficult to grasp the increasing number of proposals, affecting the development of Cardano. Cardano community The solution was to produce short-term videos and podcasts in English containing analyzed information for the proposed 25% in each Catalyst Fund. A clear and understandable solution was provided as per the proposal to clearly describe the problem targeted.

I think this proposal makes a lot of sense, but not in this exact shape. Even as a CA, I find it impossible to stay up-to-date with most of the proposals in Project Catalyst. Having 2 minute videos, if properly done, would be of great benefit to the Cardano voters and community. Yet, at this iteration, I feel like the proposal could be very detrimental to the Catalyst experiment, due to the fact that it will make a selection of 250 proposals to be reviewed. That in itself is an influence on the voters and could become problematic for the entire eco-system. The only way to solve this would be to have either all proposals reviewed, or none.

In my opinion, the proposal is not well aligned with the challenge setting of onboarding new people and community hubs to the global Cardano ecosystem, particularly in the non-English speaking world.

That does not mean that I think this proposal will not have an impact. I think it is a good proposal, for many people the information written in Catalyst proposals is difficult to digest. Especially when voting, when a large amount of proposals should be evaluated. Having summaries in video form would be helpful.

I believe this should be done with all proposals though, and not only 25% of them, as this will introduce a selection bias from the video creators. Therefore, I would prefer if they requested a larger budget so they could do this with 100% of Catalyst proposals before the voting period starts.

This proposition could increase knowledge about our ecosystem alongside the perspective of wider adoption and participation, as it would make the process more inclusive. For example, people suffering from blindness would be able to be part of the community and be more involved in the decision-making process. The only flaw is that you can't do it for the majority of the good quality proposals, only a few, because there are just too many of them. This is why I can't give the perfect score !

The roadmap is ok, pretty well explained, and spread over the duration of fund 8 and 9. Key metrics and KPIs are easy to track: Average view duration; New Subscribers… They acknowledged some risks to the challenge, although there are not many of those.

The milestones could have been more detailed, accompanied by dates, but I'm not sure that it is essential for this kind of proposal, anyway.

As the same authors explain, the project is highly easy to monitor because they have very specific goals, the budget is extremely detailed through the attached table, the content can be monitored through youtube and the work would already start in the next funds. So I believe that now the work would be on the part of the community to do this auditability. We could elect some members to monitor the progress of the project and bring feedback to the community, through one of our various communication channels (Town Hall, discord, etc). I believe there is not much to be criticized/scored in this part of the proposal, everything is perfect.

Due to the properties of this proposal, no timeline is broken down. As stated, the proposed team will start work from the start of the Fund 8 and Fund 9 proposal. It takes about 2 months for them to complete 250 videos in Fund 8 and 2 months to complete 250 videos in Fund 9. . The proposal is feasible because it has very specific goals, has key indicators, KPIs and timelines, and is easy to track and evaluate. The given budget of $12,000 is reasonable enough and it makes me completely agree that the team is competent enough to tackle the challenge.

The proposal is well divided and contains all the needed information for its proper evaluation. The budget is well detailed, the KPIs are well explained, the roadmap is sound and comprehensive, as such I can safely say that the proposal has clearly verifiable goals.

The proposers have stated quite clearly what they will do with the funds, and how many video reviews they will create per funding round. This part of the project should be easy to assess for the community.

They have included some KPIs for watch time per video, I wish they also included some KPIs for how many viewers they hope to attract. And also elaborated further how they will make the videos accessible to more people, and let people know about them. There is little point in creating these videos if they have very few viewers.

I believe it will also be difficult for the community to assess the quality of the videos, and whether they actually solve the problem of explaining proposals in a way that is easier to understand than the original proposal text.