The criteria will be written in the course of the process.

Evaluators will join from multiple disciplines and each brings with them a specialised perspective from which they will evaluate projects. These disciplines include but are not limited to:

• Systemic Value: Assessing the project’s potential for social, economic, and ecological evolutions, viewing the work as a contribution to a larger system.

• Technological Relevance and Utility: Evaluating their design choices and relevant use of blockchain technology, specifically Cardano, to solve real-world problems and create tangible utility.

• Community and Organisational Design: Analysing the project’s capacity for community organising, governance, and long-term sustainability beyond the initial funding cycle.

• Design and Development Quality: Reviewing the regenerative design principles, technical architecture, and development rigour applied to the solution.

• Narrative and Communication Coherence: Examining the team’s ability to engage their audience and guide them toward a deeper understanding of the project, communicating its progress and value through qualitative narration as well as quantitative data.

For evaluation to be meaningful for both teams and evaluators, it must be relational, not transactional. It’s important for a relationship to be built up over time, fostering mutual trust and understanding.

Reports are static, data lacks qualitative narration, and calls don’t scale. The docs and overall publishing stack is there to give hubs a way to create a whole environment with which to engage evaluators, enabling them to see into the work on-the-ground from multiple perspectives.

For that reason, there are no predefined structures of information to communicate. Teams are encouraged to think not in terms of what is expected of them but instead how much of their work can they surface, to bring it forwards as a whole system.