Ask or search…
K
Links

Scoring rubric and guiding questions

Community Reviewers must consider each of the following points as they undertake their reviews:
  • Assign a score between 1 and 5 for each criterion 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:
    1. 1.
      Impact ~ Does the proposal have the potential to positively impact Cardano?
    2. 2.
      Feasibility / Capability ~ Is the proposal feasible, and does the proposer have the capability to deliver the project successfully and manage Treasury funds properly?
    3. 3.
      Resources / Value for money ~ Does the proposal represent good value for the treasury and community?
  • Your rationale must explain the score you have given. The review may be removed if a rationale does not correspond with the score given.
  • Any score without a rationale will be filtered out, and you will not be compensated.
  • Your rationale should help the voters decide, so ensure 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] = a very poor answer, and [5] = a great answer.
1 star - VERY POOR ANSWER
2 stars - POOR ANSWER
3 stars - ACCEPTABLE ANSWER
4 stars - GOOD ANSWER
5 stars - GREAT ANSWER
The following are scoring examples and rationale for each of the 3 criteria.