Accumulator Neuron SNS Due Diligence - (Catalyze)

I’d like to preface this by stating that this is in no means financial advice, nor is it meant to criticize the decentralized application in discussion.

The following article is a collection of subjective personal opinions & objective observations of public information (of which have been objectively verified by the Catalyze Foundation), in regards to the Accumulator Neurons SNS Voting Criteria, which can be found in the resources below.


Accumulator Neuron SNS Voting Criteria

SNS Proposal Discussion

Protocol Documentation Relevant to Analysis

Protocol Abstract

Catalyze is a social application that aims to provide a community organization & management tool, alternative to popular Web2 chat-based applications such as Discord or Slack.


Main Net dApp

Is the dApp live and operational? Has the development team demonstrated technical competence specifically regarding the Internet Computer Protocol?

Yes, the Catalyze dApp is currently live and operational, showcasing the technical competence of the Catalyze Foundation in developing a social application on the Internet Computer Protocol.

The Mainnet dApp can be accessed at , providing evidence of its existence and functionality. However, it’s worth noting that the whitepaper refers to the Internet Computer Blockchain as “DFINITY,” potentially indicating a lack of clear recognition or distinction between the Internet Computer Protocol and the DFINITY Foundation.

Is the dApp fully on-chain, meaning both the front end and back end of the protocol are hosted in Canister smart contracts?

In respect to the Canister Architecture diagrams provided by the Catalyze Foundation within the Whitepaper, the entire application and application data reside on-chain.

In contrast, the chat aspect of the application (and chat data itself) uses the Matrix protocol, an open network for secure decentralized communication.

Does the dApp rely on third-party dependencies, such as off-chain providers, fee-gated APIs, or other mechanisms that rely on intermediaries? If so, is there a plan to transfer these dependencies to Canisters and the SNS? Additionally, is there a plan to fund these mechanisms independently, without solely relying on the SNS Treasury?

While the Catalyze dApp does integrate with third-party APIs from other chat-management applications like Discord, Slack, and Telegram, it’s essential to note that these APIs are not fee-gated and do not rely on external parties for upkeep.

Regarding transferring these dependencies to Canisters and the SNS, the Whitepaper does not explicitly mention such plans. However, it might be worth investigating further to understand if there are any intentions to shift these integrations to on-chain mechanisms.

Can the dApp, in its current form, be considered a complete product that fulfills its intended purpose? If the development team were to suddenly stop building, would the dApp still be able to function and achieve its objectives?

Yes, the Catalyze dApp, in its current form, can be considered a complete product that fulfills its intended purpose as a chat and community management tool.

While there are some desired functionalities that are not yet implemented, such as the “Catalyze Cast” video service, the core functionalities required for chat and community management are present and functional.

However, there are specific core features outlined in the roadmap that have not been fully implemented yet, such as “Secured on-chain chat integration” and “Event management: NFT ticketing, badging, session rooms, agenda management.” These functionalities may be considered crucial within an on-chain community organization and management tool.

In conclusion, the Catalyze dApp has shown promise as a functional social application on the Internet Computer Protocol, but some core features and functionalities are yet to be fully realized, indicating room for further development and improvement.

Protocol Overview

Is the protocol open source?

Yes, the Catalyze protocol was opensourced under a GNU GPL V2 license, following the completion of Catalyze’s Audit. The source code is available for review below;

Has the team provided a clear white paper that details the protocol comprehensively? Additionally, is there technical documentation available that explains the underlying mechanisms, functionalities, and concepts of the protocol?

The Catalyze White Paper does provide a well-defined scope, covering core concepts of the protocol, the team behind the foundation, current state, future direction, post-SNS plans, tokenomics, governance, user incentives, and voting power allocation. However, the layout of information might be improved to create a smoother flow and correlation between sections.

Is there an insightful overview of the tokenomics provided? Is token allocation responsible & proportionate?

Yes, the Catalyze Foundation does provide transparency in regards to tokenomics. A breakdown of token allocation can be found below;

51.6% - DAO Treasury

15.6% - SNS (Public Sale)

13.2% - Seed Round

12.4% - Founding Team

6.9% - SNS (Neuron Fund Sale)

.4% - Private Sale / Crowd Fund

With this being said, I believe that the Foundations personal allocation is proportionate & fair in regards to distributed token allocations, as depicted below;

Insider - 12.4%

Founding Development Team - 12.4%

Community - 36.1%

SNS (Public Sale) - 15.6%

Seed Round - 13.2%

SNS (Neuron Fund Sale) - 6.9%

Private Sale / Crowdfund - .4%

Protocol - 51.6%

DAO Treasury - 51%

Has the team clearly articulate why the SNS is the ideal decentralization solution for their application at this time?

In my opinion, yes, the team has articulated why they believe utilizing the SNS framework is the best path forward in regards to decentralizing the protocol, within the “Understanding SNS” Portion of the white paper, stating;

“The SNS (Service-Nervous-System) is the critical construct for creating DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organisations) on the Internet Computer. The SNS is modeled on the NNS (Network Nervous System) that runs the broader Internet Computer ecosystem.

The role of the SNS is to allow a dAPP (Decentralized Application) to be run through a decentralized community. This benefits community-based fundraising, censorship resistance, tokenization, and distributed governance.”

Is the team publicly known within the ecosystem? Do they have a visible presence in the crypto community or relevant industry events?

While not every member of the Foundation has a public persona, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Catalyze Foundation is publicly known within the community, and bolster a visible community presence within the ecosystem. The twitter accounts of team members can be found below for review;

Is the team’s dynamic transparent? Do team members openly communicate and collaborate with the community?

It is stated that the core team of the Catalyze Foundation consists of 5 members, all of which are easily identified within the White paper. Furthermore, transparent insight is provided regarding the role each member of the Foundation undertakes, as well as their experience & credentials to do so.

However, while the core team consists of 5 members, a public presence can only be found for 3 of the 5, as shared previously.

What is the team’s track record and experience in the relevant field? Has the team made notable contributions to the ecosystem or relevant projects?

Ray Laracuenta, CEO, and Founder:

Prior to founding the company, he was a 20+ year veteran of Gartner Inc. At Gartner, he led large research teams (both technical & management focused), had P&L and operational responsibility for a $68mm product portfolio and co-created a $20mm event series targeting midmarket IT leaders.

Johann Hartmann, COO, and Founder:

Experienced operation and alternate governance professional with a strong focus on sustainability, impact and community growth. After several experience within the sports industry, he also had the opportunity to join the team governing the Global Shapers Community (GSC), one of the most impactful and global communities of young leaders.ël-hartmann-0bba9030

Ben Everard, Engineering Director, and Founder:

Full-stack developer and agile project manager leading both our Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 development initiatives. Ben is experienced with React, React Native, Flutter, Dart, Javascript, NodeJs, Matrix.

Remco Sprenkles, Senior Engineer:

With his 8+ years of development and programming experience, Remco is a full-stack developer fluent in both React and .Net development platforms. He is also well-versed in both Rust and Motoko development languages and the coding of smart contracts.

Viroshan Naicker, Ph.D., Tokenomics lead:

Skilled mathematician and tokenomics architect. He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Johannesburg and is a seasoned researcher within the blockchain field. Viroshan further develops his skills by serving as an advisor to several blockchain/Web3 startups. He specializes in the development of tokenomic systems and governance models.

Proof of Valuation

Has the team shown comparable raises within the industry sector?

No, the Catalyze Foundation has not shown comparable raises, or any other reference in regards to how the valuation was achieved, outside of stating they believe it is enough for 2 years of runway.

Upon objective review, the Catalyze Foundation has noted that valuation is based off previous funding rounds, evaluated at 10M$. With this being said, the information regarding this valuation is also unavailable.

Does the valuation accurately address the current and potential market shares?

No, the valuation does not accurately address the current or potential market share, as it reflects what the Catalyze Foundation would like to be paid / expects expenses to accumulate to, over a 2 year period.

Has the team provided transparency regarding the valuation? Is the valuation method disclosed, and is the math behind it available for review?

The team has been transparent in regards to intended usage of funding (to pay the founding team to work for 2 years), however, the same can not be said in regards to how the valuation was achieved. The estimates that determine 2 years of runway are not available, aside from percent based allocations within the white paper.

Security Audit

Is a security audit necessary for the application?

Given the dApp handles potentially private user data (being the contents of messages), yes, I believe it is reasonable that the dApp undergoes a security audit before being pushed to SNS.

Has the code received at least some degree of review? Are there feasible in-ecosystem alternatives for conducting a security audit? Is there transparency and disclosure regarding the security measures taken?

Yes, Catalyze dApp has undergone code review by the auditing firm “Beosin”. The results of this audit can be found below;

Neuron Fund Allocation

Is the Neuron Fund utilized? If so, what percentage of the sale is the Neuron Fund?

Yes, the Catalyze Foundation has requested the participation of the Neuron Fund within the SNS Sale.

Of the 650k ICP Minimum Requirement, the Catalyze Foundation has requested the Neuron Fund contribute a staggering 400k ICP or ~62% of the sale. Alternatively, if the sale were to reach its maximum contribution, the Neuron Fund would contribute 40% of the sale.

What is the size of the contribution in respect to the size of the Neuron Fund?

Currently, the Neuron Fund represents 14.2M Staked ICP, with 3.3M Maturity being liquid to participate in Neuron Fund Sales.

Assuming a 1:1 ICP:Maturity Conversion rate for simplicity, the Catalyze Foundation has requested the Neuron Fund contribute 12% of its resources to the dApp.


In conclusion, the Catalyze Foundation has demonstrated a clear vision for their product and has shown transparency in various aspects, including team information, technical details, and tokenomics. The team members possess relevant expertise in their respective fields, which is a positive indicator of their capability to execute the project successfully.

However, there are concerns regarding the lack of transparency regarding the valuation of the project and the significant funding requested from the Neuron Fund. The valuation method and the math behind it have not been disclosed, leaving potential investors with limited insight into how the funding requirements were determined. Additionally, the request for a substantial contribution from the Neuron Fund raises questions about the project’s financial sustainability and may impact the fund’s ability to support other initiatives within the ecosystem. Furthermore, disproportionate exchange rates creates an unfair environment for contributors involved - exploiting neuron fund participants - potentially harming the overall participation of the fund itself.

As a result, I believe it is prudent to vote for “Reject to Postpone” until the Catalyze Foundation provides more clarity on their valuation methodology and addresses the concerns raised about the Neuron Fund allocation. By doing so, we can encourage greater transparency and ensure that the project’s funding aligns with the community’s best interests and the long-term growth of the Internet Computer ecosystem.

Written July 19

Submit for review July 21


Good work, I appreciate your efforts to provide a comprehensive explanation of the project’s strengths and weaknesses, allowing community members to gain a clear understanding of its nuances.

1 Like

The $GHOST Due Diligence has since been republished on Nuance, a decentralized publishing platform focused on rewarding the writer-reader relationship.

If you appreciate these Due Diligence efforts, feel free to support them within the dApp!

1 Like