RFP 04: Brand Awareness and Perception
Tender type: Request for Proposals
Issued by: Cardano Product Committee / Intersect
Research portfolio: Product Research Initiatives
Final publication date, submission deadline, clarification window, expected project period, submission method, and contact will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens.
1. Executive Summary
Strategic question
How do external audiences currently perceive Cardano as a place to build, invest, partner, or deploy capital; how does that perception compare with Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other relevant peers; and which evidence-backed positioning moves would most credibly shift perception by audience?
Evidence gap
Cardano lacks a clear baseline on how different external audiences evaluate it. Enterprise buyers, developers, analysts, investors, institutions, ecosystem partners, and retail or crypto-aware users do not evaluate a blockchain in the same way.
Generic awareness or sentiment measurement is not enough. Cardano stakeholders need to understand what each audience currently associates with Cardano, which claims they find credible, what objections block engagement, what evidence they require before taking Cardano seriously, and how Cardano compares with relevant peer ecosystems in actual perception.
Without this evidence, positioning, communications, partnerships, and ecosystem strategy may continue to rely on internal assumptions rather than external evaluation mechanisms.
Decision unlocked
This research should enable Cardano stakeholders to decide which audiences should be prioritized for positioning work, which narratives should be retained, reframed, evidenced, deprioritized, or retired, which proof assets are needed, which use-case framings should lead by segment, and which brand associations or partnership categories would credibly improve recognition or trust.
The research should also identify which perception barriers cannot be solved by messaging alone and should instead be handed to product, ecosystem, liquidity, enterprise, government, L2/interoperability, delivery partner, AI, or other workstreams.
Expected outputs
The selected vendor will produce an awareness and perception baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive perception benchmark, positioning gap analysis, objection register, message and use-case framing tests, positioning playbook, brand association and partnership assessment, perception tracking framework, executive decision memo, final research report, public summary, and cross-RFP handoff memo.
Requirement priority
The required core is to answer the decision gates with traceable evidence and produce the required decision outputs. Optional methods, templates, or stretch work should be separated from the core scope and budget. This RFP is not a campaign execution, PR, media buying, brand redesign, or creative development budget.
2. Strategic Context
The Cardano Product Committee has received funding to commission a portfolio of product research initiatives aligned with Cardano's long-term product direction and Strategy 2030 priorities. The purpose of the portfolio is to define the evidence Cardano needs before making product, adoption, funding, partnership, and strategic decisions.
This RFP focuses on brand awareness and perception. Its purpose is not to produce a promotional campaign. Its purpose is to understand how external audiences actually evaluate Cardano and what must change for Cardano to become more credible, relevant, and considered in the contexts where adoption decisions are made.
Cardano's adoption strategy depends partly on whether external audiences shortlist it before deeper evaluation begins. Builders, enterprises, institutions, analysts, partners, and retail or crypto-aware audiences may each use different shortcuts and evidence standards when deciding whether Cardano is relevant. A technically strong ecosystem can still be excluded from consideration if the audience does not understand its relevance, does not trust its proof points, or associates it with outdated or incomplete narratives.
The research should inform the Cardano Product Committee and the broader Cardano ecosystem, including communications teams, business development teams, partner teams, builders, grant allocators, ecosystem contributors, and future research vendors.
3. Research Problem Statement
Cardano lacks a decision-ready brand awareness and perception baseline by external audience segment.
Current discussions about Cardano's brand often collapse several different questions into one general claim about visibility, marketing, reputation, or narrative. These are not the same problem. Cardano stakeholders need to know whether each audience:
is aware of Cardano;
understands what Cardano is relevant for;
sees Cardano as credible for its own use case;
compares Cardano favorably or unfavorably with named peer ecosystems;
has objections that can be addressed through evidence or messaging;
has objections that reflect deeper product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or adoption constraints;
requires specific proof before considering Cardano as a place to build, invest, partner, or deploy.
This creates a strategic problem:
communications may emphasize claims that external audiences do not find credible;
partnership efforts may pursue associations that do not improve trust or consideration;
ecosystem narratives may over-index on internal language rather than external decision criteria;
brand work may try to message around real product or adoption constraints;
Cardano may fail to lead with the use cases and proof points that different audiences actually care about;
future marketing or BD investment may lack a baseline for measuring whether perception is changing.
The selected vendor must close this evidence gap by producing audience-segmented perception research that leads to specific positioning decisions and proof requirements.
4. Definitions
For this RFP:
Awareness means whether an audience recognizes Cardano, either unprompted or prompted, and whether they can identify what Cardano is or what it is relevant for.
Perception means the associations, beliefs, assumptions, emotions, and judgments an audience holds about Cardano, including strengths, weaknesses, risks, and relevance.
Credibility means whether an audience believes Cardano can plausibly deliver on a claim or be trusted for a specific action, such as building, investing, partnering, deploying, or recommending.
Consideration means whether an audience would shortlist Cardano for a relevant decision, not merely whether they have heard of it or hold a favorable impression.
Trust signal means evidence, association, endorsement, proof point, or observed behavior that increases confidence in Cardano for a specific audience.
Proof requirement means the type of evidence an audience needs before a positioning claim becomes credible, such as named deployments, user traction, liquidity depth, developer activity, enterprise references, analyst validation, security history, partner endorsement, or measurable usage.
Positioning gap means a divergence between Cardano's own narrative and how an external audience actually perceives or evaluates Cardano.
Audience segment means a respondent group with distinct evaluation criteria relevant to Cardano adoption, such as developers/builders, enterprises, analysts, institutions, partners/operators, or retail/crypto-aware audiences.
Brand association means an audience's connection between Cardano and a category, attribute, use case, partner type, institution, community, risk, or competitor.
Peer chain means a blockchain ecosystem used for comparison in audience perception testing. Solana and Ethereum L2s should be included by default; additional peers should be justified by audience, use case, or research design.
The selected vendor may refine these definitions during the research design phase, but revised definitions must remain measurable and decision-useful.
5. Objectives
The selected vendor will be expected to:
Establish a baseline of Cardano awareness, perception, credibility, and consideration by priority external audience.
Compare Cardano's external perception against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other applicant-justified peer ecosystems.
Identify the gap between Cardano's own narrative and how external audiences actually perceive it.
Map the decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, and disqualifiers each audience uses when evaluating Cardano.
Distinguish perception or messaging problems from deeper product, ecosystem, liquidity, enterprise, partner, or adoption blockers.
Test which messages, use-case framings, and proof points credibly shift perception or consideration by audience.
Assess which brand associations or partnership categories could improve credibility, and which would be cosmetic, confusing, or risky.
Recommend priority audiences and positioning actions for Cardano stakeholders.
Produce a repeatable perception tracking framework that can be refreshed in future cycles.
Identify findings that should be handed to adjacent Product Research Initiative RFPs or ecosystem workstreams.
6. Decision Gates
Applicants must design their methodology around the following decision gates. A proposal that does not map methods and deliverables to these gates will be considered weak fit for this RFP.
What is Cardano's current awareness and perception baseline by audience segment?
Quantitative or mixed-method awareness/perception data across approved audience segments, with recruitment method, sample limits, and confidence notes
Cardano has a measurable baseline by audience, not just anecdotal sentiment
Cardano cannot tell whether the issue is awareness, relevance, trust, proof, or positioning
Establish baseline for brand strategy, communications planning, and future tracking
How does Cardano compare against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other relevant peers in external perception?
Competitive perception testing by audience, including prompted and unprompted associations, perceived strengths/weaknesses, and peer-chain comparison
Cardano can identify where it is advantaged, disadvantaged, misunderstood, or absent from consideration
Competitive claims remain internal narratives without external validation
Decide which peer comparisons to lead with, avoid, or reframe
Where does Cardano's self-narrative diverge from external perception?
Comparison of Cardano/Intersect narrative themes against respondent perception, media/analyst themes, and audience-specific objections
Specific narrative gaps can be named and prioritized
The ecosystem continues communicating from assumptions that may not land externally
Retain, revise, retire, or evidence-test core messaging themes
What does each audience need before considering Cardano credible?
Audience evaluation map: decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, disqualifiers, and required evidence
Each segment has identifiable credibility requirements
Generic messaging cannot tell stakeholders what proof must be built or shown
Define proof assets, case studies, benchmarks, partner validation, or product evidence needed per audience
Which objections are blocking engagement, and are they messaging problems or substance problems?
Objection register with source, audience, severity, evidence basis, and classification as perception, proof, product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or other blocker
Cardano can distinguish fixable messaging gaps from deeper adoption or product issues
Brand work risks overpromising or trying to message around real constraints
Assign blockers to communications, product, BD, ecosystem funding, or adjacent RFP handoffs
Which messages and use-case framings credibly shift perception by audience?
Message testing with audience-specific response, credibility, relevance, objection, and action-likelihood measures
Some messages or use-case framings improve credibility and consideration for named audiences
Proposed messages are liked internally but do not shift external evaluation
Build audience-specific positioning guidance and avoid weak campaign themes
Which brand partnerships or associations would improve Cardano's credibility, and which should be avoided?
Partnership or association testing by audience, including credibility lift, strategic fit, reputational risk, and proof requirements
Some associations could credibly improve recognition or trust
Brand partnerships would be cosmetic, confusing, or misaligned
Prioritize credible association categories, co-marketing themes, partner targets, or avoid low-value partnerships
Which audiences should Cardano prioritize for positioning work first?
Comparative audience scoring across awareness gap, perception gap, strategic value, reachability, evidence confidence, and actionability
Cardano can sequence brand and positioning work by decision value
Findings are too broad to guide resource allocation
Prioritize audience-specific positioning, campaigns, proof assets, and partner outreach
What repeatable tracking framework should Cardano use after this study?
Recommended brand/perception tracking model with audience segments, metrics, cadence, recruitment logic, and limitations
Cardano can measure whether perception improves over time
This becomes a one-off report with no baseline continuity
Establish repeatable awareness/perception monitoring
Which findings should be handed to other RFPs or workstreams?
Cross-RFP handoff memo mapping issues to segmentation, use-case positioning, stablecoin liquidity, government/emerging markets, enterprise/RWA, L2/interoperability, delivery partners, AI, or other workstreams
Brand research informs adjacent work without absorbing it
RFP 4 duplicates other research or buries material product blockers inside messaging recommendations
Keep scope clean and route non-brand issues to the right decision owners
7. Scope of Work
In scope
The selected vendor should cover:
awareness and perception baseline by audience segment;
prompted and unprompted Cardano associations;
credibility, consideration, trust, and objection analysis;
competitive perception benchmark against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other justified peers;
narrative gap analysis between Cardano's self-description and external perception;
audience evaluation map;
message and use-case framing tests;
proof requirement mapping by audience;
brand association and partnership-category assessment;
media, analyst, and public-source perception audit as supporting evidence;
perception tracking framework;
cross-RFP handoff notes;
public and confidential reporting.
Audience scope guidance
Applicants should propose audience coverage and justify why the selected audience set is sufficient to answer the decision gates. The RFP does not require every audience to receive equal research depth, and lower-priority audiences may be handled through light-touch evidence where budget or access requires tradeoffs.
Core audience categories should include, or explicitly justify excluding:
Developers/builders
Understand build credibility, technical associations, and competitor pull
Enterprise or institutional buyers
Understand trust, risk, proof, compliance, and deployment barriers
Analysts/media/research voices
Understand narrative formation and reputational shorthand
Investors/institutions/capital allocators
Understand investability, ecosystem momentum, and confidence signals
Ecosystem partners/operators
Understand partnership credibility and perceived ecosystem maturity
Crypto-aware or retail audience
Understand broad awareness, sentiment, and shorthand associations; light-touch unless deeper sampling is justified
Applicants may propose additional or modified audience categories if they explain the decision value. A broad general-public sample is optional and should be justified; a general crypto-aware audience is likely more decision-useful for the core scope.
For each audience, the vendor should assess:
awareness;
core associations;
perceived strengths;
perceived weaknesses;
credibility drivers;
objections or disqualifiers;
proof requirements;
relevant peer comparisons;
message or use-case framing implications;
confidence level and sample limitations.
Competitor scope guidance
The selected vendor should benchmark Cardano against Solana and Ethereum L2s by default. Additional peers may be included where justified by audience, use case, or respondent behavior.
Competitor benchmarking should compare perception by audience. It should not become a generic technical comparison or public-narrative scorecard. Where respondents compare Cardano with peers, the vendor should identify what criteria drive the comparison and whether those criteria are based on direct experience, public reputation, social proof, analyst coverage, ecosystem visibility, or assumed product characteristics.
Out of scope and handoff boundaries
This RFP should remain focused on awareness, perception, credibility, consideration, positioning gaps, proof requirements, message testing, and brand association. It may identify findings relevant to other Product Research Initiatives, but it should not attempt to fully answer those initiatives.
Customer segmentation
Audience categories needed for perception and positioning research
Full customer segmentation, persona model, or sizing framework
Use-case landscape and competitive positioning
Perceived use-case credibility and competitor associations
Full use-case audit, vertical benchmark, or operator win/loss research
Stablecoin liquidity
Stablecoin-related trust or perception barriers where they affect brand credibility
Liquidity depth analysis, incentive design, or market-maker strategy
Government and emerging markets
Public-sector or regional perception only where relevant to brand trust
Country-level entry strategy, regulatory analysis, or regional playbooks
Enterprise and RWA
Enterprise buyer perception, trust signals, and proof requirements
Full readiness, SLA, compliance, or production-conversion assessment
L2 and interoperability
Perception of scalability or interoperability as brand factors
Technical L2 demand study, bridge strategy, or requirements register
Enterprise delivery partners
Partner associations that improve credibility
Certification model, delivery partner network design, or channel program
AI commercial positioning
AI as one possible message or use-case framing
Full AI commercial positioning or go/no-go vertical strategy
Campaign execution
Evidence to inform future messaging
PR execution, media buying, creative campaign development, or brand redesign
Findings that materially affect another research initiative should be captured in the Cross-RFP Handoff Memo rather than expanded inside this RFP.
Optional / nice-to-have stretch scope
Applicants may propose optional stretch scope, priced separately, such as:
broader general-public sampling;
deeper message testing for one or more priority audiences;
deeper brand partnership or named-association testing;
analyst or media narrative audit by region or outlet type;
annual brand tracker implementation plan;
public dashboard specification for non-sensitive awareness and perception tracking;
ecosystem briefing or workshop to translate findings into communications and BD guidance.
8. Required Methodology
The selected vendor must use a mixed-method research design. Desk research or social listening alone is not sufficient.
The methodology should include:
audience-segmented awareness and perception measurement;
qualitative research with external non-Cardano respondents;
competitive perception benchmark;
message and use-case framing tests;
brand association or partnership-category testing;
media, analyst, and public-source audit as supporting evidence;
bias controls;
evidence confidence ratings;
decision-gate mapping.
Core research hypotheses
Applicants should test, refine, or reject hypotheses such as:
Cardano's perception differs materially by audience
Whether enterprise buyers, developers, analysts, investors/institutions, partners, and retail/general crypto-aware audiences associate Cardano with different strengths, weaknesses, and risks
Prevents one-size-fits-all positioning
Awareness is not the same as consideration
Whether audiences know Cardano but do not shortlist it for building, investing, partnering, or deploying capital
Separates awareness problems from credibility or relevance problems
Cardano's internal narrative diverges from external perception
Whether Cardano's preferred claims match what external audiences believe or care about
Shows which narratives to retain, reframe, evidence, or retire
Competitor perception is audience-specific
Whether Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other peers win different perception battles by segment
Guides which comparisons Cardano should lead with or avoid
Credibility depends on evidence, not messaging alone
Whether audiences require proof points such as named deployments, liquidity, developer traction, enterprise references, analyst validation, or partner signals
Identifies proof assets needed before positioning can work
Some brand partnerships can shift trust, while others are cosmetic
Whether proposed associations increase credibility, relevance, or consideration for specific audiences
Prevents logo-chasing and weak partnership recommendations
Required evidence types
Audience-segmented survey or equivalent quantitative baseline
Measure awareness, associations, perception, credibility, consideration, and objections by audience
Required unless applicant proposes a clearly justified alternative baseline method
External audience interviews
Understand evaluation criteria, trust signals, objections, and proof requirements
Required
Competitive perception testing
Compare Cardano with Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other justified peers
Required
Message and use-case framing tests
Identify which frames credibly shift perception, relevance, or consideration
Required
Brand association or partnership-category assessment
Evaluate credibility lift, fit, and risk
Required
Media, analyst, and public-source audit
Contextualize narrative formation and public reputation
Supporting evidence only
Cardano stakeholder input
Establish internal narrative baseline and interpretation context
Supporting evidence only; not external validation
Primary research expectations
Applicants must include primary validation. The proposal should explain:
who will be surveyed or interviewed;
why those respondents are relevant;
how respondents map to audience categories;
how external non-Cardano respondents will be reached;
how sample sizes are justified;
how recruitment quality will be assessed;
how insider bias will be controlled;
how negative or skeptical respondents will be included where possible.
Applicants should propose their own sample sizes and justify why the sample is sufficient to answer the decision gates. A proposal should not imply precision that its sample cannot support.
Indicative interview expectations:
External developers/builders
[8-12]
Build/deploy credibility and competitor comparison
Enterprise/institutional/partner respondents
[8-12]
Trust, proof, and adoption barriers
Analysts/media/research voices
[5-8]
Narrative formation and reputation
Investors/capital allocators
[5-8]
Momentum, investability, and risk perception
Cardano ecosystem stakeholders
[5-8]
Internal narrative baseline, not external validation
Total suggested range
[30-50]
To be justified by applicant scope and budget
Applicants may propose different interview plans, but they must explain why the plan is sufficient to answer the decision gates.
Survey and baseline expectations
The baseline should measure:
prompted and unprompted awareness;
first associations;
perceived strengths and weaknesses;
competitor comparison;
credibility and trust;
likelihood to consider Cardano for a relevant action;
objections and disqualifiers;
proof requirements before consideration;
message and use-case framing response.
Survey evidence will be considered weak if recruitment is limited to Cardano community channels, uncontrolled social media audiences, or respondents whose audience category cannot be validated.
Message testing requirements
Message and use-case framing tests should not measure preference alone. Applicants should test:
credibility;
relevance;
clarity;
differentiation;
objection triggered;
proof required;
likelihood to consider or investigate further;
audience-specific fit.
The vendor should identify messages or claims Cardano should avoid leading with where they are not credible, are misunderstood, or trigger objections.
Brand association and partnership assessment
The vendor should assess brand associations or partnership categories that could improve Cardano's credibility, recognition, or relevance. Named brand recommendations may be included where the evidence supports them, but the core requirement is to evaluate association categories, credibility lift, fit, and risk.
The assessment should consider:
audience relevance;
credibility lift;
strategic fit;
reputational risk;
risk of appearing cosmetic;
proof required for association to be credible;
whether the association supports building, investment, partnership, or deployment decisions.
Benchmarking requirements
Competitive perception benchmarking should compare Cardano against Solana and Ethereum L2s by audience. Additional peers should be justified.
Benchmarking should use consistent criteria across Cardano and peers, such as:
awareness;
first association;
perceived momentum;
perceived developer ecosystem strength;
perceived enterprise readiness;
perceived liquidity or market activity where relevant;
trust and risk;
use-case credibility;
proof requirements;
likelihood of consideration.
Bias controls
Applicants must explain how they will control for:
Cardano insider bias;
crypto-native sample bias;
social media distortion;
respondent self-selection;
competitor narrative bias;
message preference bias;
overclaiming from small samples;
false precision in perception scoring;
conflicts of interest.
What should not count as evidence
The following should not be treated as sufficient evidence:
Cardano community sentiment presented as external perception;
social media volume presented as awareness without audience analysis;
message preference without credibility, proof, or consideration testing;
brand partnership lists without tested fit or risk;
competitor claims copied from public narratives;
anecdotes from a few visible voices;
generic crypto market research not specific to Cardano and peer chains;
all-positive recommendations;
"improve marketing" without specifying audience, proof, message, action, and evidence.
9. Expected Deliverables
Deliverables are grouped into core decision outputs, supporting research outputs, and public/community-facing outputs.
Core decision outputs
Executive Decision Memo
Concise synthesis of what Cardano stakeholders should do differently
PDF/doc, max [8] pages
States priority audiences, top perception gaps, recommended positioning moves, proof assets needed, confidence levels, and no-go/defer areas
Awareness and Perception Baseline
Baseline by audience and peer chain
Report section plus data table
Includes awareness, associations, sentiment, credibility, consideration, objections, sample source, and limitations by audience
Audience Evaluation Map
How each audience decides whether Cardano is credible
Matrix plus narrative
Shows decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, disqualifiers, and evidence confidence per audience
Competitive Perception Benchmark
Cardano vs. Solana, Ethereum L2s, and justified peers
Benchmark table plus analysis
Compares peer chains by audience on the same criteria and distinguishes perception from factual performance
Positioning Gap Analysis
Difference between Cardano's narrative and external perception
Memo/table
Identifies narrative claims, external response, evidence gap, audience affected, and recommended action
Objection Register
Audience-specific barriers and disqualifiers
Table/register
Classifies objections by audience, severity, source, evidence basis, and whether the blocker is messaging, proof, product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or handoff
Positioning Playbook
Recommended messages, proof points, use-case frames, and avoid-list by audience
Playbook plus summary table
Includes audience-specific message, reason to believe, required proof, use-case framing, objections, and excluded claims
Brand Association and Partnership Assessment
Assessment of brand associations or partnership types that may shift credibility
Table plus memo
Evaluates association value, credibility lift, fit, risk, audience relevance, and evidence needed
Perception Tracking Framework
Repeatable framework for future measurement
Framework table
Defines metrics, audience segments, cadence, recruitment logic, confidence limits, and caveats
Supporting research outputs
Research Design and Decision-Gate Map
Detailed plan before fieldwork
PDF/doc, max [10] pages
Maps every method to decision gates, audiences, sample plan, bias controls, and limitations
Survey Instrument and Sample Report
Survey questions, recruitment, and sample profile
Appendix/data file
Includes screener, sample source, segment definitions, response quality controls, and limitations
Interview Synthesis
Thematic synthesis from qualitative work
Memo/appendix
Separates Cardano, non-Cardano, and negative-case respondents; includes anonymized evidence
Message Testing Results
Evidence on message and use-case frame performance
Table plus analysis
Measures credibility, relevance, consideration, objection, and audience fit
Cross-RFP Handoff Memo
Findings that belong in other research workstreams
Memo, max [5] pages
Maps each handoff to the relevant RFP or workstream and explains why it is not solved by brand work
Final Research Report
Full research record
PDF/doc
Includes methodology, sample, findings by decision gate, limitations, data sources, confidence levels, and traceability
Public and community-facing outputs
Presentation Deck
Presentation-ready summary
Slide deck
Covers question, method, baseline, audience map, gaps, playbook, caveats, and recommended actions
Public Summary
Non-confidential summary suitable for publication
Markdown/PDF, max [5] pages
Includes methodology overview, key findings, caveats, and publishable recommendations; excludes sensitive respondent data
10. Acceptance Criteria
Each deliverable must be decision-useful, evidence-based, and traceable.
Every factual claim must be traceable to a source, survey result, interview, dataset, public-source audit, or clearly identified vendor judgment.
Every audience segment must include:
awareness level;
core associations;
perceived strengths;
perceived weaknesses;
credibility drivers;
objections or disqualifiers;
proof requirements;
relevant competitors;
message or use-case framing implications;
confidence level.
Every recommendation must state:
which audience it applies to;
what perception problem it addresses;
what evidence supports it;
what proof asset is required;
what action it enables;
what should not be concluded.
The final outputs must distinguish:
awareness problems;
credibility problems;
relevance problems;
proof gaps;
messaging gaps;
product or ecosystem constraints;
partnership or association opportunities;
findings that require handoff to another RFP or workstream.
A deliverable will be considered unacceptable if it:
treats Cardano insiders as the external market;
reports generic sentiment without audience segmentation;
relies mainly on social media listening;
gives campaign slogans instead of evidence-backed positioning;
lists brand partnerships without tested fit or risk;
compares competitors without respondent evidence;
fails to separate perception problems from product or adoption problems;
does not include weak, negative, or no-action findings;
does not map outputs to decision gates.
11. Vendor Eligibility
Applicants may be independent researchers, consultancies, agencies, academic groups, ecosystem teams, or consortia. Subcontracting is permitted where responsibilities are clearly defined.
Applicants should demonstrate:
brand awareness, perception, positioning, or market research experience;
ability to design and execute audience-segmented research;
survey or quantitative baseline capability;
qualitative interview capability;
message testing capability;
ability to reach external non-Cardano respondents;
understanding of Web3, L1/L2 ecosystems, or complex technology markets;
ability to translate research into practical positioning and proof requirements;
ability to manage research ethics, data handling, and confidentiality;
capacity to deliver concise, decision-oriented outputs.
Preferred but not mandatory capabilities include:
prior blockchain ecosystem research;
experience with enterprise, developer, investor, or analyst audiences;
experience testing technical or institutional credibility claims;
media or analyst narrative research;
brand association or partnership strategy research;
experience communicating research for both executive and public audiences.
12. Proposal Submission Requirements
Applicants must follow the shared Submission Pack and include the common documents: cover letter, technical proposal, budget proposal, team credentials, evidence access plan, ethics/data handling statement, and conflicts declaration.
Applicants bidding on multiple Product Research Initiative RFPs must disclose shared staffing, shared respondent recruitment, shared evidence collection, and any assumptions that could create respondent fatigue or duplicated outreach.
For this RFP, the technical proposal must also include:
audience coverage and sample design rationale;
competitive perception benchmark approach;
message, proof-point, or use-case framing test design where proposed;
plan for distinguishing perception gaps from substantive product or adoption blockers;
publication plan for sensitive respondent findings;
repeatable tracking framework approach.
Budgets should explain how cost relates to audience recruitment, survey or interview design, competitive testing, and decision value.
13. Evaluation Guidance
Proposals will be assessed using the CPC standard research grant evaluation framework: Fit to Grant Objectives, Team Capability, Proposal Quality and Execution Plan, and Cost Efficiency. The full scoring framework is maintained on the shared evaluation page.
For this RFP, strong fit means the proposal can produce audience-segmented evidence on awareness, perception, credibility, consideration, proof requirements, objections, and message or use-case framing. It should distinguish communications problems from product, liquidity, delivery, enterprise, or ecosystem blockers.
A strong proposal should justify audience coverage and sample design; compare Cardano against relevant peers; test claims or proof points with external audiences; and produce positioning guidance that can inform action without becoming campaign execution.
Proposals should score lower if they rely on generic sentiment analysis, use internal community views as external evidence, produce campaign ideas without testing, or try to message around substantive blockers.
Cost should be judged against evidence value, not lowest price. Higher-cost proposals may be justified by stronger audience access, credible survey recruitment, better competitive testing, or stronger proof-requirement mapping.
14. Timeline and Milestones
Final calendar dates will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens.
RFP publication
Confirmed on grants page
Open call for proposals
Clarification window opens
Confirmed on grants page
Applicants may submit questions
Clarification window closes
Confirmed on grants page
Final clarification responses issued
Proposal deadline
Confirmed on grants page
Applicant submissions due
Award notification
Confirmed on grants page
Selected vendor notified
Kickoff
Project week 1
Confirm objectives, decision gates, audiences, workplan, communication cadence, and confidentiality expectations
Research design alignment
Applicant-proposed timing
Align on methodology, audience segments, recruitment sources, screener logic, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and bias controls before fieldwork
Baseline instrument review
Applicant-proposed timing
Review survey/interview instruments, wording, sample plan, and respondent quality controls
Early signal check
Applicant-proposed timing
Surface recruitment issues, weak sample quality, audience access constraints, or emerging findings that may affect scope
Interim findings review
Applicant-proposed timing
Test whether evidence is answering the decision gates and whether any audience, competitor, or message-testing assumptions need adjustment
Draft deliverables review
Applicant-proposed timing
Review baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive benchmark, positioning gap analysis, playbook, and tracking framework
Final report and presentation
Applicant-proposed timing
Present final findings, confidence levels, limitations, decisions enabled, and recommended actions
Public summary review
Applicant-proposed timing
Confirm what can be published and what must remain confidential
Public summary
Applicant-proposed timing
Publish non-confidential summary
Applicants should propose a timeline appropriate to their methodology. Unrealistic timelines should be avoided, especially where external audience recruitment, panel quality, message testing, or analyst/institutional access is required.
15. Governance, Reporting, and Communication
The selected vendor will participate in structured checkpoints. The process should support research quality without becoming unnecessarily restrictive. CPC or a designated review group will align with the vendor on research design, audience scope, sample plan, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and confidentiality expectations, while leaving room for the vendor to adapt methods as evidence and access constraints emerge.
Kickoff
Confirm objectives, decision gates, audiences, workplan, communication cadence, and confidentiality expectations
Research Design Review
Align on methodology, audience segments, recruitment sources, screener logic, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and bias controls before fieldwork
Baseline Instrument Review
Review survey/interview instruments, wording, sample plan, and respondent quality controls
Early Signal Check
Surface recruitment issues, weak sample quality, audience access constraints, or emerging findings that may affect scope
Interim Findings Review
Test whether evidence is answering the decision gates and whether any audience, competitor, or message-testing assumptions need adjustment
Draft Deliverables Review
Review baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive benchmark, positioning gap analysis, playbook, and tracking framework
Final Presentation
Present final findings, confidence levels, limitations, decisions enabled, and recommended actions
Public Summary Review
Confirm what can be published and what must remain confidential
The reporting cadence should be proportionate to project length, but at least one interim findings review and one draft deliverables review are required.
The vendor should not wait until the final report to disclose weak recruitment, sample bias, unclear competitor definitions, untestable messages, or findings that show messaging cannot solve a perception blocker.
16. Risks, Bias Controls, and Safeguards
Applicants must include a research integrity plan.
Cardano insider bias
Separate insider findings from external audience evidence
Crypto-native sample bias
Disclose recruitment sources and screen respondents by audience
Social-media distortion
Treat social listening as supporting evidence only
False precision
Label confidence and sample limitations for each major finding
Competitor narrative bias
Use respondent evidence, not only public competitor claims
Message preference bias
Test credibility, proof requirements, and consideration, not only appeal
Partnership wish-listing
Assess association fit, credibility lift, and risk
Overclaiming
State what the research can and cannot support
Scope creep
Use cross-RFP handoff logic for adjacent product or adoption blockers
Conflicted recommendations
Require conflict declarations and mitigation plans
Sensitive reputational findings
Separate public findings, confidential findings, and raw data
The final report must include a limitations section explaining what the research can and cannot support.
17. Clarification Process
Applicants may submit clarification questions during the clarification window.
Questions may address:
audience scope;
sample expectations;
recruitment quality;
competitor set;
message testing;
brand association or partnership-category testing;
data handling;
public versus confidential outputs;
budget format;
overlap with other Product Research Initiative RFPs.
Responses should be maintained in a rolling Q&A log where practical so applicants receive consistent information. If a response materially changes scope, deadline, or eligibility, the RFP timeline may be adjusted.
The clarification process also helps assess applicant judgment. Strong questions may demonstrate specificity, methodological awareness, sample-quality discipline, audience specificity, and realistic thinking about what perception research can and cannot prove.
18. Data Handling, Confidentiality, and Public Summary
The selected vendor must provide a data handling plan covering:
informed consent for interviews, surveys, and message testing;
anonymization approach;
raw survey data handling;
interview notes or recording treatment;
storage and access controls;
retention and deletion plan;
treatment of sensitive reputational findings;
treatment of proprietary or paid data;
separation of public findings, confidential findings, and raw data;
publication boundaries.
Research outputs should distinguish:
public findings suitable for community publication;
confidential findings suitable only for CPC/internal review;
raw data that should not be published;
proprietary data that CPC can inspect but may not publish;
vendor judgment where primary data cannot be disclosed.
A public summary is expected unless specific findings cannot be published for justified confidentiality reasons. The public summary should include methodology overview, key findings, evidence caveats, and publishable recommendations. It should not expose respondent identities, sensitive strategic details, confidential brand or partnership evaluations, or commercially sensitive information.
If proprietary, paid, or respondent-provided data is used, the vendor must state:
source;
access conditions;
whether CPC can inspect it;
whether it can be cited publicly;
what limitations apply;
whether the data can be retained after project completion.
If a finding depends heavily on data CPC cannot inspect, the vendor must label the confidence level accordingly.
19. Human Subject Research Ethics
Because this RFP requires interviews, surveys, and message testing, the selected vendor must apply basic human-subject research safeguards.
At minimum, the vendor should:
tell respondents the purpose of the research;
explain who the research is for;
state how responses may be used;
ask whether comments are attributable, anonymized, or confidential;
obtain consent before recording;
avoid publishing sensitive respondent information without permission;
allow respondents to clarify attribution status;
avoid misleading respondents about the purpose or audience of the work.
20. Conflicts of Interest
Applicants must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including:
paid work for Cardano ecosystem entities;
paid work for peer-chain ecosystems;
advisory roles;
governance roles;
financial exposure to Cardano or competitor ecosystem assets;
relationships with brands, partners, agencies, or entities tested in the research;
relationships with media, analyst, investor, developer, enterprise, or partner respondents;
subcontractor conflicts.
Declared conflicts do not automatically disqualify an applicant, but they must be managed. Undisclosed conflicts may be grounds for rejection, non-award, payment holdback, or termination.
21. Terms and Conditions
Standard terms and conditions will be provided through the shared tender process before award. Applicants should assume that final award terms will cover ownership and permitted publication of deliverables, confidentiality, payment milestones, termination, data protection, subcontractor approval, warranties or disclaimers, and the governing process.
22. Appendix A: Proposal Checklist
Applicants should confirm that their proposal includes: