LV0 and LV1 - Scoring Rubric & Guiding Questions
For each of the three criteria, Community Reviewers are required to give their opinion and rationale in English to explain the score and demonstrate the assessor’s critical thinking. A proposal may receive a low score for various reasons, including if the funding application form is not complete, the applicant cannot be clearly identified, or if the project does not comply with Fund 10 Rules. If a rationale does not correspond with the score given, the review will likely be filtered out in the Moderation Stage.
Community Reviewers should consider and assess proposals and criteria on their own merits. Community Reviewers should only provide their own opinion. Their review should not be the work of others or an AI-agent acting on their behalf.
Elements to consider in reviews
Community Reviewers must consider each of the following points as they undertake their reviews:
Assign for each criteria a score between 1 and 5 based on the scoring rubric below.
For each of the three criteria a score and rationale for your score must be provided.
Each of the 3 sections should be considered and reviewed on its own merits; these sections are:
- Impact ~ Does the proposal have the potential to provide a positive impact to Cardano?
- Feasibility / Capability ~ Is the proposal feasible, and does the proposer have the capability to deliver the project successfully and manage Treasury funds properly?
- Resources / Value for money ~ Does the proposal represent good value for money for the treasury and community?
Your rationale must explain the score you have given. If a rationale does not correspond with the score given, the review may be removed.
Any score without a rationale will be filtered out, and you will not be compensated.
Your rationale should help the voters decide, so make sure your considerations, scores and rationales are comprehensible.
Consider and communicate what additional information or improvements the proposer could include in future funds.
Be sure that you submit your review correctly.
Each of the three scored sections of a proposal (Impact, Feasibility, Value for Money) will be marked 1-5, where [1 Star ★] = very poor answer, through to [5 Stars ★★★★★] = great answer.
★ - VERY POOR ANSWER
★★ - POOR ANSWER
★★★ - ACCEPTABLE ANSWER
★★★★ - GOOD ANSWER
★★★★★ - GREAT ANSWER
Examples of scoring and rationales
Please note that these examples should not be directly copied; you should use your rationale when completing your review.
You are reviewing this project’s positive impact on the Cardano Ecosystem.
Has this project clearly demonstrated in all aspects of the proposal that it will positively impact the Cardano Ecosystem?
|NO - this project has failed to demonstrate the impact it will have on the Cardano Ecosystem - the impact has not been adequately defined or elaborated.
The Impact will be LOW - this proposal element is VERY POOR
|Partially - the project has only partially demonstrated that it will have some impact on the Cardano Ecosystem, but there are too many gaps and omissions in the proposal. Likely, the proposed impact is not achievable. The proposal does not clearly explain how the proposed solution will make a real difference.
The Impact will be MEDIUM - this proposal element is OK.
|YES - this project clearly demonstrates and explains the positive impact it will have on the Cardano ecosystem, including a clear description of how they will prove the impact with tangible, measurable evidence. The impact of this proposal is realistic and achievable. The project team has demonstrated that it will properly engage with and communicate with the Community on progress.
The Impact will be HIGH - this proposal element is GREAT
You are reviewing the FEASIBILITY of this project.
Is this project feasible based on the proposal submitted? Does the plan and associated budget and milestones look achievable? Does the team have the skills, experience, capability and capacity to complete the project successfully?
|NO - this project is not feasible. There is a high risk that the project will fail to complete.
Feasibility is LOW - this proposal element is VERY POOR
|Partially - the project proposal has only partially demonstrated feasibility. Some information is lacking around the feasibility of the project team and/or the project objectives. There is some risk that the project may not be completed successfully.
Feasibility will be MEDIUM - this proposal element is OK
|YES - this project is clearly feasible based on the proposal. The project team has clearly demonstrated how it has the experience, capacity and skills needed to successfully complete the project as described, including an understanding of risks and possible mitigations.
Feasibility is HIGH - this proposal element is GREAT
Value for money
You are reviewing the VALUE FOR MONEY this represents for the Treasury and the Community
Is the funding amount requested for this project reasonable and does it provide good Value for Money to the Treasury?
|NO - this project is not good Value for Money.
Value for Money rating is LOW - this proposal element VERY POOR
|Partially - the project has only partially demonstrated the Value for Money it delivers. There is some information missing or unclear regarding how the ada will be spent and there may be some issues with tracking progress because the milestones are too generic.
Value for Money rating is MEDIUM - this proposal element is OK
|YES - this project clearly demonstrates good value for money and all financial aspects are clearly explained and defined. The project team is also able to demonstrate that it has the skills and capacity needed to properly manage funds.
Value for Money rating is HIGH - this proposal element is GREAT