This is the first update (Week #1) as part of our quest to design and build a funding readiness framework. See initial proposal here: Gardens - Funding Readiness Framework
What we planned to do
-
Build a research plan and task list
-
Brainstorm ideas for framework
-
Identify open questions
-
Establish a timeline for research phase
What we did
Research plan and task list
-
Established goals of the research phase
-
Identify the first iteration of the evaluation criteria that we can start testing
-
Create the list of projects that will be tested against our criteria
-
-
Enumerated task list
-
Brainstorm potential evaluation criteria ideas
-
Enumerate interview target list and reach out
-
Develop interview questions
-
Build a project list to be used for testing
-
-
Agreed on update process and cadence
-
Tasks (and granular task updates) on Charmverse board
-
Weekly updates on forum
-
-
Identified initial list of data sources
-
CARBON Copy’s project database + fundraising data
-
Interview subjects
-
Grant platforms
-
Blockchain for Good Alliance Incubation program
-
-
Created list of potential interview subjects
-
Grant round operators
-
ReFi power users
-
Impact investors
-
DeSci sages
-
Blockchain for Good Alliance
-
Framework ideas
-
Brainstormed evaluation criteria
-
Discussed potential framework formatting options
-
Numeric vs. text
-
Narrow (grant round specific) vs Wide (living, breathing score that can be updated over time and be used as a signal for funding readiness)
-
Projects submit text, evaluators use a numeric scale to evaluate
-
Tracking all evaluations and make them publicly available
-
Strict word limits plus proof (no extraneous information)
-
-
Specified a target project profile
-
Not new projects but also not VC-funded projects
-
Projects needing north of $50,000 to make the next step
-
-
Discussed scale options
- 1-5 (strongly agree → strongly disagree) seemed the most suitable, especially in the context of an evaluator judging a statement provided by the project
Open questions
-
How should the paradoxes fit into the evaluation criteria, or should they even be considered?
-
Is the best approach to have projects submit text responses according to the criteria and then have evaluators (grant round operators, et al) evaluate those responses as necessary?
-
Should a project be able to update their responses over time?
-
Should we track all evaluations and use it as a sort of rating system?
Timeline for research phase
- Set the expected duration of the research phase at 2 weeks
What we learned
- The ideal approach may be to have the projects fill in a text-based set of questions related to our chosen criteria and then anyone can evaluate according to a “strongly agree → strongly disagree” scale
Challenges encountered
-
Speed vs depth is a difficult needle to thread
- We’re aware that both too much depth and not enough depth may render the framework unusable
-
Decentralization vs coordination
- Such a framework would be best if it was decentralized, but this means it may never achieve adoption or even get off the ground
-
Identifying the most relevant and meaningful criteria given the target project profile
-
We need to make sure that the framework isn’t overwhelming for projects or evaluators
-
We can’t necessarily rely on existing frameworks used by VCs
-
Next steps
-
Commence research
-
Build lists of test projects
-
Answer open questions