Emmanuella Edem-Dartey

Project Owner

Motivation-as-a-Service(MaaS) for AGI Agents

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

AGI frameworks lack reusable motivation systems, forcing developers to hardcode drives. MaaS solves this with an API-driven service allowing agents to externally manage motivational states (drives, goals, feedback). By decoupling motivation logic, developers test novel utility models (e.g., “alien” drives), reuse architectures, and improve decision transparency. Deliverables: REST API, MeTTA/Python clients, Docker deployment, and configurable templates. Accelerates AGI experimentation and multi-agent ecosystems. Open-source under Apache 2.0.

RFP Guidelines

Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Proposal Submission (5 days left)

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $40,000 USD
Proposals 18
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Apr. 14, 2025

Develop a modular and extensible framework for integrating various motivational systems into AGI architectures, supporting both human-like and "alien digital" intelligences. This could be done as a highly detailed and precise specification, or as a relatively simple software prototype with suggestions for generalization and extension. Bids are expected to range from $15,000 - $30,000.

Proposal Description

Proposal Details Locked…

In order to protect this proposal from being copied, all details are hidden until the end of the submission period. Please come back later to see all details.

Total Milestones
4
Total Budget
$20,000_USD
Last Updated
20 May 2025

Milestone 1 - Core API + Basic Drives

Description

Develop REST API (FastAPI) with endpoints for drive management including `/drives` `/feedback` and `/compute-priority`. Implement YAML-based configuration supporting curiosity (novelty-seeking) and homeostasis (energy preservation) drives. Build Docker image for local testing.

Deliverables

Functional API server Docker image 2 drive templates (curiosity homeostasis) unit tests.

Budget

$7,000 USD

Success Criterion

API handles 100+ concurrent agents; demo agent selects actions via priority scores.

Milestone 2 - Agent Integration

Description

Develop MeTTA/Python client libraries with async API support. Create 2 demo agents: Explorer (prioritizes novelty) and Conservator (prioritizes resource retention). Record tutorial video showing real-time drive adjustments.

Deliverables

Client libraries 3 demo agents tutorial video load-test scripts.

Budget

$3,000 USD

Success Criterion

Agents autonomously adjust behavior; 90% API uptime under 50-agent load.

Milestone 3 - Dynamic Motivation Tuning

Description

Implement feedback-driven weight adjustment and stress-test with 10+ agents. Develop analytics dashboard to visualize drive state changes.

Deliverables

Feedback engine dashboard load-test report 5+ test cases.

Budget

$7,000 USD

Success Criterion

Drives adapt ±20% weights post-feedback; <1s API latency.

Milestone 4 - Launch Ready

Description

Finalize OpenAPI docs deployment guides and 3 tutorials. Publish DockerHub image and GitHub repo.

Deliverables

Public GitHub repo DockerHub image whitepaper 3 tutorials.

Budget

$3,000 USD

Success Criterion

500+ documentation pageviews in first month; community feedback incorporated.

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

Emmanuella Edem-Dartey

Project Owner

Project Manager

View Profile