Our team established the project and established several meetings to review objectives and address next stages. This includes governance, legal matters, and focus on first H+DAO project to develop, support and promote.
A group of individuals with long involvement in the transhumanist community, and with advocacy of the nonprofit Humanity+, are coming together to create H+DAO. Operating as a distinct organization from Humanity+, but in close partnership with it, H+DAO is a new decentralized autonomous organization. It possesses an innovative structure yet is established with goals strongly akin to Humanity+: To support the ethical and appropriate use of technology to better the human condition.
Proposal Description
AI services (New or Existing)
Compnay Name
H+DAO
Problem Description
The last few decades have seen incredible progress broadly across many advanced technology areas. Still, a disturbing amount of this progress has been oriented towards rent-seeking and enclosure activities, increasing the wealth and power of elites, corporations, and governments rather than providing for the general good of humanity.
This trend can be counteracted and perhaps even reversed by introducing innovative economic, social, and informational mechanisms to channel funds from individuals passionate about supporting humanitarian projects through decentralized democracy-supporting advanced fiscal and crypto exchange. Blockchain and AI, united as something more significant than the sum of their parts, provide a strong foundation for building such platforms. However, the corresponding design and rollout must be done carefully and cleverly to enable exponential growth exceeding that of the centralized tech industries, according to Web3 principles of tokenized protocols in place of legacy platforms.
Solution Description
The H+DAO offers actionable distributed knowledge-sharing, consensus-building, and due diligence from our community of scholars, innovators, scientists, technologists, philosophers, and artists— a key organizational asset. Aligning this unique knowledge and skills base with the decentralized incentive mechanisms furthers this asset by creating a new platform for high-value expert networks. This formidable crowd wisdom can then be channeled to support the creation of innovative new projects. In short, we aim to facilitate learning, research, and decision-making processes that are applied to projects aligned with the H+ ethos.
The core mission of H+DAO will be to create, launch, and market project-specific DAOs (PS-DAOs) associated with specific projects which advocate for and manifest beneficial transhumanism, especially those which emphasize innovative educational opportunities. Commonly, the initial role of a PS-DAO will be to raise funds for a project via the sale of governance tokens in the PS-DAO. In these cases, after initial funds are raised, the PS-DAO will then often continue to be involved in helping to guide or operate the project, optionally organizing subsequent fundraising events.
Project Benefits for SNET AI platform
To support the launch of PS-DAOs, H+DAO will develop and launch a DAOMatcher DApp, running on the SingularityNET (SNET) platform, which will apply machine learning processes to sift public databases to locate individuals predicted to be interested in particular PS-DAOs. For instance, if there is a PS-DAO related to education in Africa or BCI, then DAOMatcher would search in relevant online populations and find individuals whose online profiles strongly suggest they may be interested in these particular topics.
DAOMatcher, behind the scenes, will leverage a transformer neural net model of English, enabling recognition of individuals’ orientation toward project areas even if they are expressed in syntactically and culturally diverse ways. The DAOMatcher AI will be applicable across multiple online platforms, but initial experimentation will take place on Twitter, finding individuals on Twitter with interests matching particular PS-DAOs. Marketing outreach to identified individuals can then be carried out using existing standard Twitter marketing methodologies. For instance, a Twitter account can be created for each PS-DAO, set to follow individuals identified by DAOMatcher as having relevant interests and automatically retweeting relevant tweets from these individuals.
Note: In the longer term, it will be more optimal to connect DAOMatcher with decentralized Web3 social networks; Twitter is merely an initial experimenting ground and a practical choice due to its current broad adoption.
Competitive Landscape
Because of the uniqueness of a specific transhumanist DAO, this section refers to a relative market landscape of potential competition that comes from several channels.
First, a disturbing amount of this progress has been oriented toward increasing the wealth and power of elites, corporations, and governments rather than the general good of humanity.
Second, there are many news feeds, social platforms, and other vehicles that harbor polarized or hard-nosed views through a proprietary lens. This makes the transmission of information about alternative futures more challenging. Decentralized mechanisms offer potentially more open channels for advocacy aimed at economic, social, and informational mechanisms that channel funds toward suitable projects.
Third, e-learning platforms—whether hybrid, synchronous or asynchronous—lack the knowledge to manifest a particular focus on beneficial transhumanism, a perspective that could strongly support the SingularityNET reputation system.
These trends can be counteracted and perhaps even reversed by the introduction of preferable economic, social, and informational mechanisms to channel funds from individuals passionate about supporting the democratization of advanced technology to suitable projects. Blockchain and AI provide an obvious foundation for creating such mechanisms, but the corresponding design and rollout have to be done carefully and cleverly to enable exponential growth, which can eclipse the centralized legacy tech industries.
The education and innovator projects available to people are largely market-driven by advertising campaigns and promotional materials that appear cookie cutter. Many of these projects are all telling and/or selling the same story. Finding a seminal knowledge source can be challenging and the distilling of information is a challenging and expensive process, one that lacks support or recognition from traditional institutions.
H+DAO reaches people through the historical messaging of transhumanism and the voices of those who helped implement ideas that are mainstream today. These primary sources include scholars in the fields of computer science, AI, AGI, biomedical sciences and technologies, philosophy, the Humanities, and the Arts, and who have in the past shared their knowledge for a decentralized education of ideas. Offering a no-nonsense, practical, and verifiable approach is a key asset to the H+DAO. Establishing a high standard of projects in the past as examples of what can be achieved in the future sets us apart.
The worldview of transhumanism is internationally known, with advocacy in the many thousands. Humanity+ is currently the preeminent transhumanism advocacy organization.
Marketing & Competition
The DAOMatcher AI will applyacross multiple online platforms, but initial experimentation will take place on Twitter, locating individuals on Twitter with interests matching particular PS-DAOs through grassroots mechanisms. Marketing outreach to identified individuals can then be carried out. For instance, a Twitter account can be created for each PS-DAO, which can then follow individuals identified by DAOMatcher as having relevant interests, and automatically retweet relevant tweets from these individuals.
Note: In the longer term, it will be more optimal to connect DAOMatcher with decentralized web3 social networks; Twitter is merely an initial experimenting ground and a practical choice due to its current broad adoption.
Needed Resources
To create H+DAO a new decentralized autonomous organization, we need talent skilled in the following areas: DAO architecture, AI implementation, social media marketing, outreach, and project management.
Long Description
Innovative social opportunities that foster preferable economic, social, and informational mechanisms are contingent on timely, accessible, and actionable information—knowledge and learning venues that may flow through organizations and groups, newsfeeds, and social media platforms. Several knowledge gaps frustrate the achievement of social innovation, especially for ‘moonshot’ projects. Humanity+ has long advocated for channels of funds from individuals who understand the knowledge gap to those who are both passionate and competent to support innovative humanitarian projects. Humanity+ has distributed a great deal of information to learning institutions through articles, books, and conferences. However, we wish to go further, and the crypto AI opportunity permits us to do so. A group of individuals with long involvement in the transhumanist community aims to create H+DAO—a new decentralized autonomous organization with very similar goals to Humanity+, but with a powerfully innovative, decentralized, and democratically empowered organizational structure.
1. H+DAO will operate as a distinct organization from Humanity+ but in close partnership with some of these goals:
Advocacy of the ethical use of technology for developing decentralized projects for the benefit of the human condition.
Showcasing the
H+ Summit (videos ) spread ideas that feature the latest actionable H+ projects that can support innovation.
Proliferating the learning outreach of the
H+ Academy Roundtable’s discussion and debate processes, which focus on technology and the future.
Amplifying the
Knowledge Accelerator at the Center for Transhumanist Studies to assist with development of a DAOMatcher DApp, powered by the SingularityNET platform, which can apply AI algorithms to search available online information and find individuals potentially interested in particular PS-DAOs.
2. Project Insight, Funding, and Collaboration Mechanisms:
The H+DAO aims to establish a view for raising funds for specific projects that incentivize decentralized economic, social, and informational mechanisms and reflect the scope of transhumanist technology. The DAOMatcher technology, key to the practical implementation of this vision, will form a model of the modern social and technological space via analyzing diverse online textual information and then leveraging this in its natural language models to interpret social media posts and profiles of various individuals to infer their potential interest in H+DAO projects.
The viability of the approach underlying DAOMatcher is dependent on modern NLP technology such as transformer neural networks, and also on recent developments in global media utilization. Newsfeeds have overtaken other information channels, such as newspapers, radio, and TV, in fostering decentralized communication.
As newsfeed platforms compete for viewers, online learning is also growing. Online learning has become the preferred platform for learning about up-to-date tech advances, developing skills to implement ideas, and meeting others to form innovative teams. The global eLearning market is at $250 billion and is expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2027. Yet, most learning platforms lack the needed economic, social, and informational institutional mechanisms that champion public feedback and quality epistemology. Inferring individuals’ interests from their reported engagement in online learning platforms will be another part of DAOMatcher’s unique methodology.
The H+DAO aims to unite with informational and learning mechanisms to channel funds from individuals passionate about supporting the decentralization and democratization of advanced technology. Examples of projects that currently offer unique perspectives are:
, a computer-sharing network where “gamers and everyday people exchange idle compute resources for rewards, today announced a $17 million Series A funding round to scale its cloud infrastructure and develop a new enterprise vertical for Web3 innovators.”
, offers the “Mobile ICT Classroom that brings digital skills and education to remote communities” with access to the electricity grid and connectivity for isolated communities.
creates open-source tools for biosensing and neuroscience, with Galea hardware and software platform that merges next-generation biometrics with mixed reality, as a novel device that integrates EEG, EMG, EDA, PPG, and eye-tracking.
Examples of new projects that H+DAO could offer with unique perspectives are:
Prototyping an amazing new BCI concept; or
Prototyping a unique longevity project; or
Prototyping a new cryonics technology.
1. H+DAO Governance:
Governance of H+DAO will be conducted by holders of H+DAO governance tokens. A percentage of the governance tokens will be made liquid and sold to interested parties. A percentage will be non-liquid and allocated based on reputation in the H+DAO network, where reputation will be calculated by an appropriate adaptation of the SingularityNET reputation system. Detailed design of the governance system is pending and high priority, to be done in the first few months of the project prior to H+DAO launch.
The governance token holders of H+DAO will decide which PS-DAOs to launch. Smart-contract and legal templates will be created to simplify the task of launching new PS-DAOs, so the amount of new formal and technical work to create a new PS-DAO will be relatively minimal— the bulk of effort will be in gaining traction for a new PS-DAO among members of the H+DAO community and using new PS-DAOs to expand the H+DAO community via pulling in individuals with interest in that specific project area.
2. PS-DAO Collaboration with Humanity+:
Where a particular PS-DAO is appropriately suited to Humanity+'s mandate and structure as a US 501c3 nonprofit organization, then H+DAO will collaborate with Humanity+ on that PS-DAO. The form of this collaboration may depend on each case (e.g., potential aspects) including, but not limited to:
Outreach and publicity for the PS-DAO on the part of Humanity+;
Granting Humanity+ a portion of governance tokens in the PS-DAO, or a commission on an initial governance token sale; and
Using Humanity+’s extensive mailing list as seed information for guiding DAOMatcher.
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.
About Expert 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.
Total Milestones
5
Total Budget
$40,000 USD
Last Updated
11 Mar 2024
Milestone 1 - Project start
Status
😀 Completed
Description
Signed Contract
Deliverables
Budget
$5,000 USD
Link URL
Milestone 2 - Legal Entity
Status
🧐 In Progress
Description
Formal Entity - Incorporation. Legal setup of H+DAO as a formal entity with tokenized governance in a friendly jurisdiction.
Deliverables
Budget
$5,000 USD
Link URL
Milestone 3 - API-call and Hosting
Status
😐 Not Started
Description
Establish process for prototyping of DAOMatcher as an experimental Singularity NET service.
Deliverables
Budget
$10,000 USD
Link URL
Milestone 4 - DAOMatcher
Status
😐 Not Started
Description
Design and development of a stable beta version of DAOMatcher.
Deliverables
Budget
$15,000 USD
Link URL
Milestone 5 - Governance
Status
😐 Not Started
Description
Implementation of smart contracts for an H+DAO governance token (which can be forked to support PS-DAO as well).
New reviews and ratings are disabled for Awarded Projects
No Reviews Avaliable
Check back later by refreshing the page.
Expert Review (anonymous)
Final Group Rating
Rating Categories
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.
About Expert 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.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Sort by