Gold Support

Project Owner

GoldSearch AI

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request $50,000 USD
RFP Guidelines An AI-native Development Environment for the ASI:Chain

Overview

The world’s first end-to-end AI business engine—from deep logic search and intelligent matching to real-time communication and commercial activation. GoldSearch: Your AI Agent, Connecting You to the Business World—InstantlyNext-Gen AI Business Logic Search Engine—a reasoning-driven ecosystem designed to monetize the trillion-dollar digital economy through intelligent matching.

RFP Guidelines

Open for Proposals

An AI-native Development Environment for...

Ending on:

13 Feb. 2026

Days

Hours

Minutes

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $50,000 USD
Proposals 4
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Feb. 4, 2026

View RFP

This RFP seeks proposals for the development of an AI-native Development Environment (IDE) that improves the efficiency and accessibility of blockchain application development for the ASI:Chain.

Proposal Description

Our Team

Alice Du

Founder & CEO

Innovator in Market & Sales with 20+ Years of Experience
Founder of MWR Int’ Inc. and Dr. Approved Massage Chairs - Relaxology
Medical devices (Philips & ResMed) partners
Outstanding sales of $30M in China mainland

Jiang Hui
Co-Founder & CTO

Tech Architecture of Alibaba Group
9 Years’ of Backend & Data Development
Zhejiang University (Master of Computer Science)

Background & Experience

Alice Du

Founder & CEO

Innovator in Market & Sales with 20+ Years of Experience
Founder of MWR Int’ Inc. and Dr. Approved Massage Chairs - Relaxology
Medical devices (Philips & ResMed) partners
Outstanding sales of $30M in China mainland

Jiang Hui
Co-Founder & CTO

Tech Architecture of Alibaba Group
9 Years’ of Backend & Data Development
Zhejiang University (Master of Computer Science)

Activity Summary

Milestones

3

Total

Discussion

0

Total Comments

Reviews

0

Total Posted

Project Team

2

Total People

Total Milestones
3
Total Budget
$50,000_USD
Last Updated
9 Feb 2026

Milestone 1 - Core Product & MVP Readiness

Description

Timeline: Month 1–2 Finalize system architecture and data pipelines Deliver AI research engine MVP (deep research, market mapping, report generation) Initial Web3 integration (wallet connection, basic on-chain tracking)

Deliverables

Outcome: Functional MVP with real users able to generate AI business research.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

MVP accessible to external testers ≥100 research queries successfully generated Reports delivered within minutes with stable performance

Milestone 2 - On-Chain Utility & Incentives

Description

Timeline: Month 3 Deploy token/NFT utility contracts Enable on-chain payments for reports and premium access Launch incentive mechanisms for early users and data contributors

Deliverables

Token/NFT utility smart contracts deployed On-chain payments for premium research Incentives for data contribution and early users

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

≥300 on-chain transactions linked to platform usage ≥100 users interacting with token/NFT utilities First paid research reports completed on-chain

Milestone 3 - User Growth, Feedback & Optimization

Description

Targeted B2B user onboarding and ecosystem campaigns Collect usage data and user feedback Performance, security, and UX optimization

Deliverables

Targeted B2B onboarding campaigns UX, performance, and security improvements Usage analytics and feedback reports

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

≥300 active users ≥30% user retention after 30 days ≥10 repeat paying users or enterprise pilots Demonstrated recurring on-chain activity

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.

Gold Support

Project Owner

Founder & CEO

View Profile

Account Pending

CTO

Co-Founder & CTO

Account Pending

GoldSearch AI

Gold Support

GoldSearch AI

Expert Rating

Overview

RFP Guidelines

An AI-native Development Environment for...

SingularityNET

An AI-native Development Environment for the ASI:Chain

SingularityNET

Proposal Description

Our Team

Background & Experience

Activity Summary

Milestones

3

Discussion

0

Reviews

0

Project Team

2

Proposal Video

Not Avaliable Yet

3

$50,000 USD

9 Feb 2026

Milestone 1 - Core Product & MVP Readiness

Description

Deliverables

Budget

Success Criterion

Milestone 2 - On-Chain Utility & Incentives

Description

Deliverables

Budget

Success Criterion

Milestone 3 - User Growth, Feedback & Optimization

Description

Deliverables

Budget

Success Criterion

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Gold Support

Account Pending

Receive notifications on Deep Funding

PROJECTS

ROUND

RFPS

DEEP FUNDING

COLLABORATIONS

AI PLATFORM

Welcome to our website!

Forget your Password

Password Reset Link Sent!

$50,000_USD