Felix Weber

Project Owner

Building Community Town Halls

Project for Round 2
Funding Awarded $4,000 USD
Funding Pools Marketing initiatives
Milestones 7 / 8 Completed

Status

Overall Status
🛠️ In Progress
Funding Transfered
$3,500_USD
Max Funding Amount
$4,000_USD

Funding Schedule

View Milestones

Milestone Release 1	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 2	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 3	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 4	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 5	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 6	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 7	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	TBD
Milestone Release 8	$500 USD	Pending	TBD

Overview

Singularity Swarm is a virtual community hub for the SingularityNET community, to have a common platform for communication and engagement. The project aims to allocate resources in establishing a DeepFunding Town Hall which empowers and engages the SingularityNet Community and Ecosystem.

Proposal Description

Compnay Name

Singularity Swarm

Service Details

In conclusion, achieving the benefits of the virtual community hub will require a combination of regular evaluations and feedback, incentive programs, effective moderation, collaboration opportunities, and marketing initiatives. These steps will ensure increased community engagement and participation, improved marketing initiatives, and a stronger sense of community and brand loyalty. The proposed solution is expected to address the issue of limited access to resources, information, and tools for interaction and collaboration and provide the DeepFunding community with a central platform for communication and engagement.

Organising and Hosting bi weekly Community Events
Launching weekly bounties
Inviting community projects to join and to present
Recording and publishing the events

Overall, we will set up the first framework and processes with which Town Halls can be coordinated in a fully open and community driven initiative.

In addition to that, we:

Regularly evaluate and gather feedback from community members to continuously improve the community hub and its offerings.

This will be done via working sessions as retrospectives, polls and chat conversations which are announced at the wider community

Encourage and reward active participation and engagement from community members through initiatives, bounties, and other programs.

This will be done through the use of the already established bounty boards and the implemented Treasury & Accounting system

Foster a positive and supportive environment for community members through effective moderation and facilitation.

This will be facilitated by the Swarm experience of empowering the community to host their own spaces

Encourage collaboration and partnerships through community events and Town Halls.

When people and projects meet in well facilitated spaces, we can ensure that ideas find a common ground to explore collaborations with others.

Support marketing initiatives that align with the needs and goals of the community, as gathered through feedback and metrics.

This would be done via specific Bounties which invite especially content creators to create videos or articles on the DeepFund & SingularityNET ecosystem.

Problem Description

The DeepFunding community lacks a central platform for communication and engagement, leading to limited access to resources, information, and tools for interaction and collaboration. This hinders the involvement and participation of community members and can lead to isolation and disconnection.

Solution Description

This proposal outlines the support & creation of a virtual community hub facilitated and moderated by SingularityNet community & swarm. This hub will most likely provide the community with regular Town Halls, initiative and bounty tracking, and support for emerging projects within the SingularityNET community.

Measurable Goals

Number of successful Town Hall initiatives, bounties, and participations tracked through the Treasury & Accounting system.
Increase in community collaboration and active participation.
Growth in the number of projects emerging from the community.

Increase in the use of resources, information, and tools provided by the community hub.
Improvement in the overall satisfaction and engagement of the DeepFunding community.

Successful allocation of resources for the establishment and maintenance of the DeepFunding Town Hall.

Achieving Goals

After the 8th Town Hall, we will ask ourselves

Did we successfully host 8 Town Halls ?

Did we have increasing participation at community led - breakout rooms ?

How many contributions, tasks and bounties did we recognize and documented via the treasury & accounting system ?

How many SingularityNET community members engaged in the Town Halls ?

Success Metrics & Rewards

Success levels and rewards
This proposal aims to reward 8 Town Halls on a biweekly basis over 4 months.
To slowly bootstrap this new Town Hall, we would allocate 500 Usd in AGIX to each Town Hall. Additional token to recognize contributions will be forwarded from Catalyst Swarm Fund allocations to support the SingularityNET Community.
8 Town Halls = 4000 Usd in AGIX
Each successful executed DeepFund Town Hall enables rewards to recognize done work. Each successful executed Town Hall includes:
Align on Date & Time slots with SingularityNET Community & Foundation

Setting up Zoom Call
Setting up Flyer
Announce Town Hall at Swarm & Catalyst Community
Setting up Bounties to join the Town Hall
Facilitate the Town Hall
Record the event
Release recording on Swarm Youtube
Timestamp Recording via bounty
Send out rewards
Constant Q&A to community via discord

Document process
Review & improve process

Previous Progress

Nice note 🙂
In December 2022, we initiated the very first DeepFund Town Hall in collaboration with SingularityNET Foundation.
Give it a look or two….
https://youtu.be/qytGawfcpaA

Btw, for background history on this proposal...
Swarm is highly engaged at SingularityNET & DeepFunding since early 2022 and has already supported and initiatied a wide range of community initiatives in the past:
We started to pull together some documentation: (In progress)
https://catalyst-swarm.gitbook.io/singularity-swarm/

Activity Summary

Milestones

8

Total

Discussion

0

Total Comments

Reviews

0

Total Posted

Project Team

0

Total People

Reviews & Rating

New reviews and ratings are disabled for Awarded Projects

Overall Community

0

from 0 reviews

5

0
4

0
3

0
2

0
1

0

Feasibility

0

from 0 reviews

Viability

0

from 0 reviews

Desirabilty

0

from 0 reviews

Usefulness

0

from 0 reviews

Sort by

0 ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

Posting publicaly as

edit profile

Overall

Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0
Confidence in a successful outcome considering team, time, and budget Viability

0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

Expert Review

Overall

Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0
Confidence in a successful outcome considering team, time, and budget Viability

0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

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.

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)

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)

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)

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
8
Total Budget
$4,000_USD
Last Updated
8 Mar 2024

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

New reviews and ratings are disabled for Awarded Projects

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0.0
Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0.0
Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0.0

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

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

Viability (secondary)

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)

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)

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.

Viability (secondary)

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)

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)

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.