Decision Gates
-
Which regions should be prioritised for near-term government and emerging-market entry, based on comparative evidence rather than strategic narrative?
-
Which use cases are credible entry plays in each priority region, and which are aspirational without current evidence of viability?
-
Which counterparties are reachable within a 12–24 month horizon, and what route exists to decision-makers or implementation partners?
-
What does the regulatory landscape look like per priority region, and what dependencies or blockers affect the entry play?
-
What infrastructure prerequisites must be in place before action is credible, including stablecoin liquidity, off-ramp access, identity, privacy, mobile-first design, and delivery capacity?
-
What partner and delivery model is required in each region, and who can build, operate, support, and scale the solution?
-
What constitutes meaningful adoption in each play, and what should not be counted as evidence of progress?
-
Which findings belong in adjacent RFPs or workstreams, and what cross-portfolio handoffs are required to keep scope clean?
7. Decision Gate Mapping
The table below maps each of the eight RFP 05 decision gates to the primary method, evidence source, deliverable, limitation, and decision enabled by this research.
| Decision Gate | Primary Method | Key Evidence Source | Core Deliverable | Decision Enabled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Which regions should Cardano prioritise first? | RARF application; desk screening; stakeholder interviews | Regional market indicators; expert interviews; ecosystem data | Market Prioritisation Matrix | Sequence regional attention and funding; deprioritise or monitor low-scoring clusters |
| Which use cases are credible entry plays by region? | Use-case viability assessment; operator-level interviews; comparative desk research | Local practitioner interviews; competitive landscape; secondary market data | Use-Case Viability Assessment | Select leading use cases per region; reject unsupported vertical claims |
| Which counterparties are reachable on 12–24 month horizon? | Counterparty mapping; hub network engagement; stakeholder interviews | Interviewed contacts; PRISMA hub network; desk-identified institutional actors | Counterparty & Partner Access Map | Pursue partner engagement, intermediary strategy, or no-action |
| What does the regulatory landscape require per region? | Regulatory landscape mapping; policy desk research; local expert calls | Regulatory body publications; policy expert interviews; legal counsel (where accessible) | Regulatory Landscape Summaries | Define regulatory diligence, local counsel needs, go/no-go conditions |
| What infrastructure prerequisites must be in place? | Infrastructure prerequisite assessment; practitioner interviews | Mobile/digital infrastructure data; payment ecosystem analysis; delivery partner interviews | Infrastructure Prerequisite Assessment | Coordinate with stablecoin, enterprise/RWA, delivery partner, and interoperability workstreams |
| What partner and delivery model is required? | Partner archetype analysis; local delivery capacity review | Local system integrator interviews; hub network evidence; implementation partner mapping | Regional Entry Playbooks (delivery model component) | Define partner recruitment, local capability building, and pilot ownership requirements |
| What constitutes meaningful adoption vs. cosmetic activity? | CASS classification; adoption signal analysis | Primary research evidence; usage data where available; implementation actor interviews | Adoption Signal Framework (CASS) | Set pilot KPIs, funding triggers, and stop conditions |
| Which findings should go to adjacent RFPs? | Scope boundary analysis throughout research | Research findings across all workstreams | Cross-RFP Handoff Memo | Keep portfolio scope clean; route non-regional issues to the correct decision owners |