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:

  • Impact ~ Does the proposal have the potential to positively impact 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 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.