Evaluation Criteria | Regenerant Catalunya
AIM: Transparent, rigorous, and regenerative evaluation standards adapted for Catalan bioregional context, guiding funding decisions that prioritize local impact while building capacity for Web3 adoption.
1. Introduction
Regenerant Catalunya’s evaluation methodology is adapted from the proven approach developed and implemented by Regen Coordination in Gitcoin Grants Round 23 (GG23), which successfully evaluated and informed the allocation of a $96,000 matching pool to 50 projects. This methodology provides a tested foundation while allowing Catalan-specific customization through collaborative definition with our local partners.
Evaluation Approach
Our evaluation framework combines:
- Evidence-based assessment - Rewarding documented action and impact, not just alignment with regenerative values
- Bioregional adaptation - Criteria and weighting reflect the values and priorities of Catalan regenerative work, emphasizing cooperative traditions, rural-urban integration, and Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) alignment
- Human-centered evaluation - Council members with relevant expertise systematically review project reports and score according to criteria adapted for our bioregional context
- Collaborative definition - The specific criteria and weighting are collaboratively defined with our local partners (Miceli Social and La Fundició / Keras Buti) to ensure they appropriately reflect the values and priorities of Catalan regenerative work
Evaluation Process Flow
- Projects submit regular activity and impact reports through Karma GAP following Common Approach frameworks
- Council members systematically review reports and score projects according to criteria adapted for our bioregional context
- Final allocations are determined based on evaluation scores, balancing impact demonstration with project needs
- Two-phase distribution links evaluation to funding: Phase 1 (Baseline Allocation) based on initial reports, Phase 2 (Adoption Allocation) rewarding continued Web3 tool adoption
For more details on the impact measurement framework, see the master document section on Impact Measurement & On-Chain Activity.
2. Evaluation Principles
Our approach to evaluation is guided by five core principles, adapted from Regen Coordination’s methodology with emphasis on Catalan bioregional context:
1. Evidence Over Intention
We reward projects that show documented action and impact, not just alignment with regenerative values. Projects must demonstrate verifiable activities, outputs, and outcomes that contribute to local regeneration. Vision statements and mission alignment are important, but action matters more.
2. Transparency and Traceability
Evaluations are based on verifiable data and public documentation, making it easier for all stakeholders to understand why a project scored the way it did. All projects maintain living, public “project resumes” on the blockchain through Karma GAP, ensuring transparency and accountability.
3. Mission Alignment
Projects must demonstrate how their work contributes to bioregional regeneration within the Catalan context. This includes:
- Ecological restoration and ecosystem health
- Social equity and community empowerment
- Economic resilience through cooperative and solidarity economy models
- Integration with Catalonia’s century-long cooperative traditions
- Contribution to regenerative finance (ReFi) and Web3 awareness and adoption
4. Equity and Inclusivity
We recognize and uplift a diversity of regenerative efforts, valuing projects that empower local communities and strengthen resilience across diverse contexts — from rural depopulation zones (supported by Miceli Social networks) to dense urban centers (engaged through La Fundició/Keras Buti). We particularly value initiatives that:
- Serve marginalized or historically underserved communities
- Build capacity within Catalonia’s Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE)
- Strengthen cooperative governance and community ownership
- Bridge rural and urban regenerative work
5. Adaptability and Learning
Our rubrics and methodologies are living documents, evolving based on learning from each funding round, ecosystem feedback, and the growth of regenerative practices within Catalonia. The evaluation framework will be refined collaboratively with local partners after Round 1 to incorporate learnings and improve effectiveness.
3. Core Evaluation Criteria
Each project is evaluated across four weighted criteria that reflect Regenerant Catalunya’s mission: supporting bioregional regeneration through exemplary projects that demonstrate local impact while building capacity for Web3 adoption.
Scoring Scale
Each criterion is scored independently on a 1–10 scale, with detailed bounding definitions guiding evaluators. The scoring system is intentionally strict and evidence-based to ensure credibility, fairness, and external defensibility:
- 1–3 → Limited or no meaningful contribution
- 4–6 → Moderate contribution; aligned but partial execution
- 7–8 → Strong, measurable contribution; above average impact
- 9–10 → Exceptional leadership; ecosystem-wide or transformational impact
Final Weighted Score Calculation:
Final Score = (Criterion 1 × 0.35) + (Criterion 2 × 0.25) + (Criterion 3 × 0.25) + (Criterion 4 × 0.15)
Scores inform allocation decisions for both Phase 1 (Baseline Allocation) and Phase 2 (Adoption Allocation) distributions.
Criterion 1: Local Ecological, Social & Economic Impact (Weight: 35%)
Description: To what extent does the project directly create or catalyze ecological, social, and economic impact in local communities across Catalonia? This includes whether the project leads or supports sustainable impact actions and demonstrates alignment with local priorities and regenerative outcomes within the Catalan bioregion.
This score evaluates the project’s real-world impact — including direct actions taken or catalytic support provided to others — that result in tangible ecological restoration, social equity, or economic resilience. Priority is placed on recent efforts (during and after program participation), with historical context supporting evaluation but weighted less.
Key Evaluation Anchors
| Dimension | Strong Signals |
|---|---|
| Direct Ecological Impact | Evidence that the project has led on-the-ground activities that regenerate ecosystems — e.g., reforestation, biodiversity protection, soil restoration, river basin stewardship, carbon removal, or implementation of nature-based solutions. Particularly relevant for Catalan contexts: Fluvià River basin restoration, agroecological systems in Delta del Llobregat, rural forest management. |
| Direct Social Impact | Evidence that the project has improved well-being, access, equity, or empowerment for local communities — especially marginalized or historically underserved groups. May include: community health programs (holistic, nature-rooted models), cooperative housing, food sovereignty initiatives, educational programs strengthening place-connection, cultural regeneration. |
| Direct Economic Impact | Evidence of wealth creation, employment generation, economic resilience, or improved access to capital for local communities — particularly through regenerative sectors, solidarity economies, or circular/local value flows. Project supports systems change by building community capacity, institutional resilience, or long-term resource flows (e.g. cooperatives, mutual aid, land trusts, community-owned assets). Recognition of Catalan SSE ecosystem strength. |
| Catalytic Impact | Project plays a strategic or support role — such as distributing funding, building capacity, or enabling other local actors to create impact (e.g., microgrants, training, partnerships, technical or network support). Demonstrates how project multiplies impact beyond its direct actions, particularly within Miceli Social or La Fundició/Keras Buti networks. |
Scoring Bounding
| Score | Bounding Definition | How to Recognize This Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No meaningful impact. Project claims alignment with regenerative values but provides no evidence of ecological, social, or economic activity or outcomes. | - No updates or vague descriptions of impact - No activities or outputs related to local change - No documentation, metrics, or examples of impact created or catalyzed |
| 2–3 | Minimal or implied contribution. Project may align with impact goals but lacks specificity, scale, or evidence. | - May have completed / documented a single regenerative activity (e.g., pilot project, workshop, grant distribution, tree planting, beach cleanup) - Some ecological, social, or economic benefits visible, though not well quantified - Light support for other efforts (e.g. mentions a partner project) but unclear what was done - Limited direct impact activities or measurable outcomes - Limited metrics or outputs to back claims |
| 4–6 | Tangible early-stage or small-scale impact. Project is actively engaging in impact-oriented activities, but scale or clarity is limited. | - Conducted multiple regenerative activities (e.g., pilot project, workshop, grant distribution, tree planting, beach cleanup) - Ecological, social, or economic benefits visible and quantified - Metrics and documentation are present - Alignment with Catalan regenerative priorities visible (cooperative models, SSE integration, bioregional thinking) |
| 7–8 | Clear and meaningful contribution. Project has delivered measurable local outcomes or catalyzed other actors with real results. | - Many regenerative activities completed both historically and recently, with measurable ecological restoration or community impact (e.g., # trees planted, # households served, # participants in workshops, hectares restored) - Activities clearly align with local regenerative goals and Catalan cooperative values - Supports other actors through microgrants, training, or platform access - Provides solid documentation: photos, reports, outcomes, testimonials, or dashboards - Demonstrates integration with broader Catalan SSE networks |
| 9–10 | Transformational and systemic impact. Project is a driver or catalyst for deep and/or distributed local change — across multiple impact areas or actors. | - Demonstrates integrated, multi-dimensional impact at both depth and scale across ecological, social, and economic domains with very well documented results and evidence of intersectional benefits - Built long-term and operational new systems (e.g., community-owned assets, circular economies, shared governance, cooperative structures) - Catalyzes a network of regenerative actors with direct support (e.g., funding 10+ projects, training hundreds, activating new cooperative initiatives) - Publishes comprehensive proof of impact (impact dashboards, reports, datasets, outcome maps) - Demonstrates replication potential within Catalan bioregion or beyond |
Scoring Guidance
Apply conservative scoring based on verifiable, recent, and meaningful contributions. Favor rigor and clarity over assumptions or good intentions. Do not reward vision or alignment alone — reward documented action and impact. Recognize the value of small-scale, well-executed initiatives that demonstrate strong local grounding and cooperative values, even if scale is modest.
Criterion 2: ReFi/Web3 Awareness, Adoption & Development (Weight: 25%)
Description: How effectively does the project contribute to increasing awareness, engagement, adoption, and development of ReFi Web3 tools and Ethereum-aligned ecosystems? This includes practical tool adoption (Karma GAP, wallets, optional tools), on-chain activity, and reputation building that enables future funding opportunities.
ReFi Web3 refers to the use of blockchain-based tools (e.g., DAOs, smart contracts, ecological credits, onchain funding, local stablecoins, dMRV, impact tracking, etc.) to drive regenerative impact. Projects should demonstrate how they are using or enabling others to use these tools in practice. This score reflects how well a project contributes to the visibility, use, and growth of the ReFi Web3 ecosystem, particularly after program onboarding. Emphasis is on depth and quality of engagement, strength of output deliverables and metrics, and demonstrated contributions to onboarding, education, or infrastructure-building.
Key Evaluation Anchors
| Dimension | Strong Signals |
|---|---|
| Awareness | Evidence that the project’s activities have increased public understanding or visibility of ReFi Web3 tools and Ethereum-aligned ecosystems (Celo, Ethereum L1/L2s). This may include targeted campaigns, workshops, educational materials, or media content that explicitly promote blockchain tools and concepts in a regenerative context — with clear indicators of participant reach or engagement. |
| Adoption | Evidence that the project has helped onboard new users or communities into Ethereum-aligned ecosystems. This includes: wallet creation and use, Karma GAP profile creation and regular updates, use of Web3 dApps, participation in DAOs, or direct integration of onchain tools into local systems. Adoption should be tangible, with metrics or outputs showing real user interaction. |
| Development | Evidence that the project has contributed to the technical or infrastructural growth of the ReFi Web3 ecosystem. This includes: building or deploying dApps, smart contracts, or integrations; training new developers or entrepreneurs; hosting hackathons; or supporting others in launching onchain projects. Development of reusable infrastructure (e.g. open-source tools, smart contract templates, SDKs) adopted by others in the ecosystem. |
| Financial Activity | Evidence that the project’s activities have catalyzed onchain financial flows — including increased transaction volume, funding round participation, onboarding of capital and users, and creation of local onchain economies. Demonstrates capital staying within Web3 rails (e.g., TVF), usage of local currencies, community treasuries, or ecosystem dashboards and metrics. Projects that enable local communities to retain value within Web3 are prioritized over those where value is immediately extracted from the ecosystem. |
Scoring Bounding
| Score | Bounding Definition | How to Recognize This Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No meaningful engagement with ReFi Web3. No meaningful activities, outputs, or tools related to the ecosystem. | - No events, tools, or content related to ReFi Web3 - No output deliverables or participant data - ReFi or Web3 mentioned only in passing, or not at all - No Karma GAP profile or wallet setup |
| 2–3 | Some contribution to ReFi Web3. Project shows some alignment but lacks clarity or effectiveness in actual engagement. | - Generic ReFi values referenced, but unclear connection to ReFi tech/tools - Weak or non-existent deliverables - Little real-world engagement or outputs - Basic Karma GAP profile or wallet setup with minimal activity - Little indication of builder/community activation - May be some introduction of ReFi concepts to local audiences - Potential for ecosystem impact, but not yet proven or evidenced |
| 4–6 | Some effective engagement. Tangible outputs with moderate reach. Project begins integrating ReFi tools and builds community awareness. | - At least one high-quality event, guide, or workshop OR Multiple events or campaigns with strong turnout (25–150 people) - Output deliverables with specific participant numbers (e.g., 10–50 attendees) - Some evidence of tool adoption, wallet onboarding, or protocol use - Regular Karma GAP updates documenting activities - Some local or regional traction, with measurable impact metrics - Some evidence that the project’s initiatives have supported or inspired new builders or local projects |
| 7–8 | Strong engagement and contribution. Demonstrates multiple well-executed activities that drive real ReFi Web3 awareness, usage, and/or development. | - Many events, guides, workshops or campaigns with strong turnout (25–150 people) - Solid evidence of tool adoption, wallet onboarding, or protocol use - Strong deliverables (e.g. workshop recordings, resource guides, dashboards) - Consistent Karma GAP reporting with quality updates - Optional tool integration (Silvi, Hypercerts, Gainforest, Sarafu) demonstrated - Strong and consistent local or regional traction, with measurable impact metrics - Strong evidence that initiatives support or inspire new builders or local projects |
| 9–10 | Exceptional ecosystem catalyst. Demonstrates leadership in onboarding new users, educating the public, and catalyzing new builders and ReFi projects. | - Projects that significantly grow the ecosystem (e.g., large scale ReFi builder programs, hackathons, incubators) - Output metrics in the hundreds or more - Clear causal link between project and new ReFi Web3 activity at scale - Multiple optional tool integrations creating verifiable impact credentials - Demonstrated influence beyond local level (e.g., public narratives, protocol development, international replication) - On-chain reputation building enables future funding opportunities |
Scoring Guidance
Apply conservative scoring based on verifiable, recent, and meaningful contributions. Favor rigor and clarity over assumptions or good intentions. Do not reward vision or alignment alone — reward documented action and impact. Prioritize substance over scale — a smaller workshop with wallet creation and tool use may outweigh a broad campaign with no adoption metrics. Recognize that many Catalan projects are new to Web3, so gradual adoption and learning should be valued alongside demonstrated proficiency.
Criterion 3: Resource Efficiency & Project Maturity (Weight: 25%)
Description: How well does the project’s impact and output compare to the resources available, organizational maturity, and past funding received? Projects that have achieved significant results with limited resources or early-stage maturity should score higher. This helps ensure that projects with fewer advantages but strong delivery are recognized and supported — particularly important for small cooperatives and early-stage initiatives common in Catalonia’s SSE ecosystem.
This score is about effectiveness and return on resources — not just what a project did, but how that compares to their access to funding, team capacity, and operational maturity. Priority is given to recent impact vs. recent resources (during and after program participation), but patterns of under-/over-performance can be considered holistically.
Key Evaluation Anchors
| Dimension | Strong Signals |
|---|---|
| Funding Efficiency | Evidence that the project has delivered outsized impact relative to the amount of funding received. Demonstrates creative or lean use of resources. Particularly relevant for small cooperatives and community-led initiatives that operate with limited budgets. |
| Stage & Maturity Alignment | Impact is impressive when considered in light of the project’s size, age, or operational maturity. For example, new or emerging projects producing results that match or exceed more established orgs. Recognition of early-stage cooperative initiatives building capacity. |
| Team & Capacity | Smaller teams or collectives generating broad outputs or community activation — suggesting strong internal coordination and motivation. Recognition for volunteer-driven efforts or community-led initiatives that deliver strong results without formal resourcing. Strong alignment with Catalan cooperative tradition of collective action. |
| High-Resource Accountability | For well-funded or mature projects: evidence that they’re converting resources into impact efficiently and transparently. Transparent documentation of how funds were used (e.g., public budget breakdowns, grant reports, dashboards, or fund tracking tools). Poor performance with high funding should be scored lower. |
Scoring Bounding
| Score | Bounding Definition | How to Recognize This Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | High resourcing with low return. Project has received substantial past funding or support, but has not demonstrated clear impact. | - 3+ grant rounds with minimal activities or outputs delivered - No clear link between funding received and tangible outcomes - Limited or poor documentation of use of funds - Vague or repeated promises without clear follow-through |
| 2–3 | Under-delivered relative to resourcing or maturity. Some impact exists, but feels underwhelming considering support received. | - Past funding or established team, but only moderate results - Outputs don’t match scale or frequency of funding - Reporting is inconsistent or lacks substance - Missed milestones or low-effort public updates |
| 4–6 | Performance matches expectations. Impact is roughly in line with maturity level and resourcing. | - Average output and delivery given team size and past funding - Some milestones achieved and evidence of impact - Reporting exists, though may lack detail or consistency - No major red flags, but no clear overperformance |
| 7–8 | Efficient and effective. Project is clearly doing a lot with limited resources or early-stage maturity. | - Small team or early-stage org delivering high-quality outcomes - Single or small grants converted into measurable results - Demonstrates good judgment and adaptability with available resources - Tracks how limited funding was deployed effectively - Strong performance for a cooperative or community-led initiative |
| 9–10 | Outstanding resource efficiency and delivery. Project demonstrates a “multiplier effect” — consistently creating high-impact outcomes from modest or minimal support. | - First-time or under-resourced team delivering ecosystem-wide results - High outputs across multiple impact areas with low resourcing - Transparent, well-structured reporting and accountability - Could include community-led efforts with no institutional support but strong local delivery - Exemplary cooperative efficiency demonstrating SSE model strength |
Scoring Guidance
Apply conservative scoring based on verifiable, recent, and meaningful contributions. Favor rigor and clarity over assumptions or good intentions. Recognize that many Catalan regenerative projects operate as small cooperatives or community initiatives with limited formal resourcing — strong performance relative to resources should be rewarded. Do not penalize early-stage initiatives for lack of historical funding; focus on efficiency and impact relative to current capacity.
Criterion 4: Active Goals, Plans & Milestones (Weight: 15%)
Description: How clear, feasible, and impactful are the project’s active goals, plans, and objectives? How aligned are these with Regenerant Catalunya’s mission and bioregional regeneration goals? This includes evaluating how well the project has defined and is working toward tangible goals, milestones, or objectives in alignment with broader impact targets.
This score evaluates the quality, clarity, ambition and alignment of a project’s roadmap — especially for the program period and beyond. It considers how well plans are scoped, communicated, and aligned with regenerative finance goals and bioregional regeneration objectives. Priority is given to forward-facing documentation and milestones that reflect strong internal planning and strategic alignment with Catalan cooperative values and SSE ecosystem integration.
Key Evaluation Anchors
| Dimension | Strong Signals |
|---|---|
| Clarity of Goals | Clearly stated outcomes or deliverables, with accessible language, defined scope, and public visibility. Goals are specific and measurable, not vague aspirations. Alignment with Catalan regenerative priorities visible. |
| Feasibility | The goals make sense relative to the team’s size, resourcing, and current context — they are neither vague nor unrealistic. Plans demonstrate understanding of cooperative governance and community capacity. |
| Ambition & Alignment | Goals push the project forward and show alignment with ecosystem-wide objectives — not just internal growth. Includes coordination or alignment with Regenerant Catalunya program goals as well as other projects, nodes, or institutions — especially when roadmap supports shared infrastructure, protocols, or multi-stakeholder impact. Strong connection to bioregional regeneration and cooperative values. |
| Milestone Tracking | Project provides defined milestones with dates, status, or documentation — including past updates and forward-looking targets. May also include evidence of regular review, iteration, and adaptation (e.g. monthly reflections, learning sprints, community check-ins). Karma GAP updates demonstrate progress tracking. |
Scoring Bounding
| Score | Bounding Definition | How to Recognize This Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No clear goals or plans. Project provides little or no indication of what it’s trying to accomplish. | - No roadmap or future-facing plans - Vague or generic language like “grow the movement” - No documented milestones or timelines - No updates or planning outputs visible |
| 2–3 | Low clarity or ambition. Some stated intentions, but lacking in detail, feasibility, or coherence. | - Lists objectives, but they’re too vague or unrealistic - Confuses goals with values (“empower community” with no how) - Lacks specificity or proof of feasibility / past reputation to deliver - No deliverables or metrics attached to planned work - Lacks documentation or timeline structure |
| 4–6 | Basic planning in place. Project has shared goals or milestones that are reasonable and relevant, but not yet deeply developed or fully transparent. | - Milestones, Roadmap or update posts outline past progress and core work ahead - Planning appears internally consistent but not ambitious - Clarity on some outputs, but limited contextual impact - Some alignment with bioregional regeneration goals visible |
| 7–8 | Strong planning and alignment. Project has clearly defined, actionable, and context-aware goals that reflect thoughtfulness and readiness. | - Milestones for program period are very well detailed and well-articulated - Plans are feasible, scoped, and aligned with broader ecosystem strategy and bioregional regeneration - Deliverables or KPIs are included - Shows evidence of past milestone completion as well as review, iteration, and reflections - Strong alignment with Catalan cooperative values and SSE integration |
| 9–10 | Highly strategic and ecosystem-aligned roadmap. Project offers a clear, compelling, and impactful roadmap — with evidence of delivery in motion. | - Published roadmap includes detailed objectives, delivery dates, and resourcing logic - Milestones are trackable and tied to major ecosystem goals (e.g., ReFi adoption, bioregional regeneration, cooperative capacity-building) - Already delivering on planned goals - Strong integration with Regenerant Catalunya program objectives - Could serve as a model for others’ planning and transparency - Demonstrates strategic thinking about long-term bioregional impact |
Scoring Guidance
Apply conservative scoring based on verifiable, recent, and meaningful contributions. Favor rigor and clarity over assumptions or good intentions. Recognize that many Catalan projects operate within cooperative governance frameworks that may approach planning differently than traditional organizations — value clarity and feasibility within those frameworks. Do not reward vision or alignment alone — reward documented action and impact.
4. Scoring Methodology
Scoring Scale
Each criterion is scored independently on a 1–10 scale, with detailed bounding definitions guiding evaluators. The scoring system is intentionally strict and evidence-based to ensure credibility, fairness, and external defensibility:
- 1–3 → Limited or no meaningful contribution
- 4–6 → Moderate contribution; aligned but partial execution
- 7–8 → Strong, measurable contribution; above average impact
- 9–10 → Exceptional leadership; ecosystem-wide or transformational impact
Important calibration notes:
-
Recent Work Weighted More Heavily: ~70–80% of scoring is based on work during and after program participation, which ensures that scoring reflects the impact and activities generated after projects received initial support — rewarding those that have delivered meaningful outcomes with the funding and opportunity provided. ~20–30% is based on historical contributions (before program participation) to provide helpful context without overly weighting prior work.
-
Evidence Over Intention: Projects are rewarded for verifiable actions, deliverables, and outputs — not promises, proposals, or alignment alone.
-
Use the Full Scale: Scores of 8–10 should be rare, reserved only for exceptional, externally verifiable projects.
-
Conservative Scoring: Favor rigor, clarity, and substance. If data is vague, outdated, or unsubstantiated, score conservatively to maintain high integrity.
Final Score Calculation
The final weighted score is calculated as follows:
Final Score = (Criterion 1 × 0.35) + (Criterion 2 × 0.25) + (Criterion 3 × 0.25) + (Criterion 4 × 0.15)
Maximum Possible Score: 10.0
Minimum Score: 1.0
Evaluation Requirements
All projects must be evaluated by at least three independent council members. Evaluators include:
- ReFi Barcelona team members (Luiz Fernando, Giulio Quarta, Andrea Farias)
- Advisors from local partners (representatives from Miceli Social and La Fundició/Keras Buti)
- Additional advisors invited by the council as needed
Human evaluators review project reports and score according to the criteria, ensuring that final decisions reflect both systematic evaluation and human-centered strategic judgment aligned with Catalan regenerative values.
5. Evaluation Process
Project Reporting Structure
Projects submit regular activity and impact reports through Karma GAP following Common Approach frameworks. Reports should include:
- Activities - What the project has done (workshops, restoration work, community engagement, etc.)
- Outputs - Tangible deliverables (materials created, participants reached, trees planted, etc.)
- Outcomes - Changes or benefits resulting from activities (improved river quality, community capacity built, etc.)
- Impact - Long-term effects on ecological, social, or economic systems
Reporting Cadence:
- Phase 1 (Baseline Allocation): At least one comprehensive report submitted by December 2025
- Phase 2 (Adoption Allocation): At least one comprehensive report submitted by February 2026, emphasizing continued Web3 tool adoption and quality reporting
- Ongoing: Regular updates encouraged through Karma GAP to build on-chain reputation
Council Evaluation Workflow
- Projects submit reports through Karma GAP following Common Approach frameworks
- Council members systematically review reports and score projects according to criteria adapted for our bioregional context
- Independent scoring - Each council member scores independently (minimum 3 evaluators per project)
- Score averaging - Final scores are averaged across evaluators
- Allocation determination - Final allocations are determined based on evaluation scores, balancing impact demonstration with project needs
Timeline and Cadence
- November 2025: Initial project onboarding and Karma GAP profile setup
- December 2025: Council review of initial GAP reports; Phase 1 (Baseline Allocation) disbursed based on evaluation scores
- January–February 2026: Continued execution and reporting; council checkpoint review
- February 2026: Phase 2 (Adoption Allocation) disbursed based on continued engagement and tool adoption evaluation
6. Council & Evaluation Framework
Council Composition
The evaluation council is formed by:
-
Lead Operators - ReFi Barcelona
- Luiz Fernando Segala Gomes – Founder & Strategy Lead at ReFi BCN • Operations Lead at ReFi DAO • Council Member at Regen Coordination
- Giulio Quarta – Operations, Partnerships & Community Lead at ReFi BCN • Previously director at Crypto Commons Association
- Andrea Farias – Program Design & Communications Lead at ReFi BCN
-
Advisors
- At least 1 representative from each local funder/partner:
- Oriol (Miceli Social) - Rural resilience and municipal collaboration expertise
- Mariló (La Fundició / Keras Buti) - Urban cooperative economics and cultural innovation experience
- Additional invitations to be aligned & sent by council as needed
- At least 1 representative from each local funder/partner:
Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities
Council members are responsible for:
- Systematically reviewing project reports submitted through Karma GAP
- Scoring projects independently according to the four evaluation criteria
- Providing qualitative feedback on project strengths and areas for improvement
- Ensuring evaluations reflect Catalan regenerative values and bioregional context
- Participating in collaborative criteria refinement discussions
ReFi Barcelona team coordinates:
- Karma GAP onboarding and training for all projects
- Report collection and distribution to council members
- Score aggregation and allocation calculation
- Transparent communication of evaluation results and allocation decisions
Human-Centered Evaluation
Unlike some evaluation methodologies that use AI-generated baseline reports, Regenerant Catalunya relies on human-centered evaluation by council members with relevant expertise. This approach ensures:
- Nuanced understanding of Catalan bioregional context and cooperative values
- Strategic judgment aligned with local partner priorities (Miceli Social, La Fundició/Keras Buti)
- Cultural sensitivity to Catalan SSE ecosystem and regenerative traditions
- Direct relationship between evaluators and evaluated projects
Collaborative Criteria Refinement
The evaluation criteria and weighting are collaboratively defined with local partners (Miceli Social and La Fundició / Keras Buti) to ensure they appropriately reflect the values and priorities of Catalan regenerative work. This collaborative process:
- Integrates rural resilience expertise (Miceli Social)
- Incorporates urban cooperative economics perspective (La Fundició/Keras Buti)
- Ensures alignment with Catalan cooperative traditions and SSE values
- Allows for refinement after Round 1 based on learnings
7. Allocation & Distribution
Two-Phase Distribution Model
Regenerant Catalunya uses a two-phase distribution approach that links evaluation scores to funding decisions:
Phase 1: Baseline Allocation (50% of total funds)
- Timing: November–December 2025
- Trigger: Initial Karma GAP reports submitted and evaluated by council
- Allocation Basis: Evaluation scores from Criterion 1 (Local Impact) and Criterion 3 (Resource Efficiency), weighted toward demonstrated impact
- Minimum Threshold: €1,000 per project
- Purpose: Support ongoing work and initial Web3 tool adoption
Phase 2: Adoption Allocation (50% of total funds, optional)
- Timing: January–February 2026
- Trigger: Continued Karma GAP reporting demonstrating tool adoption and quality engagement
- Allocation Basis: Evaluation scores emphasizing Criterion 2 (ReFi/Web3 Adoption) and continued performance across all criteria
- Eligibility: Projects demonstrating:
- High-quality ongoing reporting through Karma GAP
- Meaningful Web3 tool adoption (wallet usage, regular updates, optional tool integration)
- Continued progress toward stated goals (Criterion 4)
- Purpose: Reward continued engagement and incentivize deeper Web3 experimentation
Allocation Formula
Phase 1 Allocation:
Phase 1 Score = (Criterion 1 × 0.50) + (Criterion 3 × 0.50)
Phase 1 Allocation = (Project Phase 1 Score / Sum of All Phase 1 Scores) × Total Phase 1 Pool
Phase 2 Allocation:
Phase 2 Score = (Criterion 1 × 0.25) + (Criterion 2 × 0.40) + (Criterion 3 × 0.20) + (Criterion 4 × 0.15)
Phase 2 Allocation = (Project Phase 2 Score / Sum of All Phase 2 Scores) × Total Phase 2 Pool
Note: Projects must meet minimum engagement thresholds to be eligible for Phase 2 allocation. Projects that do not submit adequate Phase 2 reports or demonstrate minimal tool adoption may receive reduced or no Phase 2 allocation.
Minimum Thresholds
- Phase 1: All projects receive minimum €1,000 regardless of score (ensuring baseline support)
- Phase 2: Projects must score ≥4.0 on Phase 2 evaluation to be eligible (ensuring quality engagement)
Transparency and Accountability
All allocation decisions are:
- Publicly documented through on-chain records (Safe multisig transactions)
- Transparently communicated to projects with evaluation score breakdowns
- Tracked through Karma GAP updates
- Reported in final round documentation (February–March 2026)
8. Source References
Methodology Sources
- Regen Coordination Project Evaluation Methodology - Detailed evaluation framework adapted for Regenerant Catalunya
- Regen Coordination GG23 Retrospective - Proven methodology that successfully allocated $96,000 to 50 projects
- Localism Fund Round 01 Public Documentation - Evaluation rubric structure for local grant programs
Program Documentation
- Regenerant Catalunya Master Document - Complete program documentation including impact measurement framework
- Impact Measurement & On-Chain Activity - Detailed section on evaluation process and criteria
Frameworks and Tools
- Karma GAP - On-chain impact reporting platform used by all projects
- Common Approach to Impact Measurement - Framework guiding project reporting structure
Local Partners
- Miceli Social - Cooperative service hub for rural resilience, co-funder and evaluation partner
- La Fundició / Keras Buti - Cultural and social innovation cooperative, co-funder and evaluation partner
9. Version History & Collaborative Refinement
Version 1.0 (October 2025) - Initial framework adapted from Regen Coordination GG23 methodology, collaboratively defined with local partners.
Future Refinements:
This evaluation framework will be refined after Round 1 (completion March 2026) based on:
- Learnings from council evaluation process
- Project feedback on criteria clarity and applicability
- Effectiveness of Phase 1 vs Phase 2 allocation mechanisms
- Integration with Catalan bioregional context and SSE ecosystem
- Alignment with local partner priorities (Miceli Social, La Fundició/Keras Buti)
All refinements will be documented transparently and shared publicly as part of Regenerant Catalunya’s commitment to open knowledge generation.
This evaluation criteria framework is a living document, evolving based on learning from each funding round, ecosystem feedback, and the growth of regenerative practices within Catalonia. For questions or feedback, contact the ReFi Barcelona team.