Community Review - Scoring Rubric and Guiding Questions
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
The following are generic examples of scoring rationale for each of the three criteria. Please notethat these examples should not be directly copied; you should use your rationale when completing your review.
Last updated