PhilipeSantos

Project Owner

DeepTrust – Reputation and Voting Weight System

Expert Rating

n/a

Type Community RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Reputation and Voting Weight System

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

Overview

DeepTrust is a scalable, modular, and transparent Reputation & Voting Weight System designed for DeepFunding’s governance needs. It leverages event-driven processing, customizable reputation scoring services, and a dynamic UI to ensure fairness, security, and adaptability. The system supports user-controlled configurations, auditability, and ZKP readiness for future privacy enhancements. With a robust technical stack, security-first design, and structured development roadmap, DeepTrust sets a new standard for decentralized reputation-based decision-making.

RFP Guidelines

Reputation and Voting Weight System

Internal Proposal Review

Type Community RFP
Total RFP Funding $140,000 USD
Proposals 14
Awarded Projects n/a

Juana Attieh

Dec. 19, 2024

The goal of this project is to develop functionality that will enable modular microservices that support data collection, scoring, and analytics functions as part of a reputation and voting weight system. This should include an architecture to allow for the integration of future microservices, an initial suite of key microservices, and a user interface that allows users to find and utilize various configurations of the microservices.

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
6
Total Budget
$120,000_USD
Last Updated
3 Mar 2025

Milestone 1 - Reputation Scoring Engine Development

Description

Develop the core scoring engine and establish an API for seamless integration.

Deliverables

Working Reputation Scoring Engine with a standardized API and a prototype scoring service.

Budget

$25,000 USD

Success Criterion

Reputation scores are computed and aggregated correctly, and the API successfully integrates with a test scoring service.

Milestone 2 - Reputation Expression Engine Development

Description

Enable users to define and modify scoring rules dynamically.

Deliverables

Rule parser and validation system with real-time execution and feedback.

Budget

$25,000 USD

Success Criterion

Users can create and validate scoring expressions without system errors or inconsistencies.

Milestone 3 - Scoring Services Management

Description

Develop an intuitive interface for managing scoring configurations.

Deliverables

Fully functional UI allowing users to fine-tune and configure scoring services dynamically.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Users can manage scoring settings without requiring backend modifications.

Milestone 4 - Integration with External APIs & Score Services

Description

Implement score services and integrate external data sources.

Deliverables

DeepFunding Proposal and Voting Scoring Services On-Chain Scoring Service Credibility Scoring Service and external API integrations.

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Reputation services pull and process data correctly, integrating with external providers.

Milestone 5 - ZKP Integration Readiness & User Consent Dashboard

Description

Prepare the system for future ZKP-based verification and implement user data

Deliverables

ZKP readiness infrastructure and a User Consent Dashboard for managing reputation data.

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Users can control data permissions, and ZKP integration is architecturally supported for future enhancements.

Milestone 6 - Scaling Logging & Monitoring Implementation

Description

Optimize performance and implement system-wide monitoring.

Deliverables

Scalable architecture real-time logging and anomaly detection system.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

The system handles high transaction volumes efficiently, and monitoring tools detect and log anomalies accurately.

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.

PhilipeSantos

Project Owner

Project Lead and Software Architect, responsible for overseeing all aspects of development and management while actively contributing to the system's implementation.

View Profile