TrustLevel's proposal focuses on addressing challenges within the Deep Funding Governance mechanisms by creating a Deep Funding - Reputation Focus Group. This initiative aims to gather experts and community members to ideate and design effective reputation systems for Deep Funding. The proposal outlines a series of workshops, including open community workshops and expert workshops, hosted on Zoom. The workshops will result in a written recommendation to the SingularityNET Foundation for future Deep Funding rounds. The project's funding request of $5,000 will cover workshop preparation, hosting, participant rewards, and the creation of a recommendation paper. TrustLevel aims to foster community-driven innovation, ensure transparency, and enhance the Deep Funding ecosystem.
Proposal Description
Compnay Name
TrustLevel
Service Details
In summary, we will gather a focused group of experts, launch a series of workshops to ensure alignment of various community initiatives around reputation and contribution scores, and create a recommendation to SingularityNET for further steps to effectively design and implement DeepFunding reputation systems linked to on-chain mechanisms.
Problem Description
DeepFunding started early initiatives to address important topics and challenges at DeepFunding Governance mechanisms, such as contributions and reputations systems to equalise and deliver a more equal participation from participants in the decision making processes at DeepFunding. However, since early initiatives such as the Contribution score, led by Photrek have brought first important success and knowledge, there is still a lack of community capacity to effectively support DeepFunding in these evolutions and to work on a solution which allows to bridge already existing efforts to actual onchain mechanisms.
Furthermore, we see several moving parts and pieces emerging in the DF Community which work on common and similar initiatives which are yet lacking overall coordinations and alignment. This Focus Group aims to be a hub to invite and co-coordinate alignment and cohesion, ensuring that separate initiatives do not work in competition but collaboration.
While awarded teams/funded proposals will implement their solutions, the main focus of these groups will have to rely on their work, making it difficult to enable time and capacity to catch up with similar initiatives. This lack aims to be addressed by this proposal.
Solution Description
Our solution is to introduce and facilitate a series of ‘Expert Workshops’.
This proposal covers the ideation and design process of a DeepFunding - Reputation Focus Group which aims to gather experts and thought leaders in the domain of reputation mechanisms in DLT Ecosystems and to ensure a strong participation of community members to support SingularityNET Foundation initiatives towards the exploration and implementation of reputation systems at project DeepFunding.
To achieve these goals, we plan to host a series of workshops, dedicated to building a community wide conversation, engagement and participation on the topic of DeepFunding Reputation systems.
In these workshops, we will invite specific experts and thought-leaders in reputation systems and blockchain technology, ensuring that beforehand gathered community perspectives are well reflected and included in a feasible and effective manner.
These workshops will be held on Zoom and will be recorded. Recordings will be made public to the community, ensuring a maximum of transparency of the DF Reputation system Ideation. Each Workshop will focus on a specific topic around the DF Token, making sure that the Workshops stay focused and in scope.
Milestone & Budget
The proposal is divided into three milestones. We will finalise this proposal before the launch of DF Fund 4, but no more than 3 months after the successful funding. The frequency of the workshops will follow the DF Timeline towards Fund 4.
To make the topics and workshops as relevant as possible, we will coordinate closely with the community, funded applicants and the SNET team.
Milestone 1 - Coordination & Communication
Description:
The first step is the planning, coordination and communication of the workshop series. This includes setting dates and topics as well as outreach to the relevant and interested community members.
Milestone deliverable:
Scheduled Workshops
List of participants
Topics and agenda for each workshop
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 8 hours x 125 USD/h = $1.000 USD
Milestone 2 - Expert Workshops
Description:
We will offer this format on four different dates and invite experts. The workshop series build on each other. Duration of the event: approx. 90min each in Zoom. This milestone includes the preparation, pre-communication, moderation and debriefing of the individual workshops (estimated workload per workshop: 5 hours)
Milestone outcome:
4x Expert Workshops on Zoom.
Meeting Minutes
Video Recordings
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 20 hours x 150 USD/h = $3.000 USD
Milestone 3 - Recommendation Paper
Description:
Based on the discussions and results of the workshop, we will write a summary paper recommending a reputation/contribution score for deep funding. In addition, we will demonstrate how the continuation of this focus group after the completion of this proposal makes sense for the community.
Milestone outcome:
Recommendation paper for DF
Future Plan for the ‘Reputation Focus Group’
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 8 hours x 125 USD/h = $1.000 USD
Revenue Sharing
There will be no revenue generated.
Marketing & Competition
To promote participation in the workshops, we will proceed as follows:
We will announce these workshops on the public channels (Discord, TownHall, Twitter etc.) of SNET and Deep Funding.
For the expert workshops, we will actively search for participants in the community together with BridgeBuilder.io and Swarm.
In summary, we will gather a focused group of experts, launch a series of workshops to ensure alignment of various community initiatives around reputation and contribution scores, and create a recommendation to SingularityNET for further steps to effectively design and implement DeepFunding reputation systems linked to on-chain mechanisms.
Funding Amount
$5.000 USD
The Problem to be Solved
DeepFunding started early initiatives to address important topics and challenges at DeepFunding Governance mechanisms, such as contributions and reputations systems to equalise and deliver a more equal participation from participants in the decision making processes at DeepFunding. However, since early initiatives such as the Contribution score, led by Photrek have brought first important success and knowledge, there is still a lack of community capacity to effectively support DeepFunding in these evolutions and to work on a solution which allows to bridge already existing efforts to actual onchain mechanisms.
Furthermore, we see several moving parts and pieces emerging in the DF Community which work on common and similar initiatives which are yet lacking overall coordinations and alignment. This Focus Group aims to be a hub to invite and co-coordinate alignment and cohesion, ensuring that separate initiatives do not work in competition but collaboration.
While awarded teams/funded proposals will implement their solutions, the main focus of these groups will have to rely on their work, making it difficult to enable time and capacity to catch up with similar initiatives. This lack aims to be addressed by this proposal.
Our Solution
Our solution is to introduce and facilitate a series of ‘Expert Workshops’.
This proposal covers the ideation and design process of a DeepFunding - Reputation Focus Group which aims to gather experts and thought leaders in the domain of reputation mechanisms in DLT Ecosystems and to ensure a strong participation of community members to support SingularityNET Foundation initiatives towards the exploration and implementation of reputation systems at project DeepFunding.
To achieve these goals, we plan to host a series of workshops, dedicated to building a community wide conversation, engagement and participation on the topic of DeepFunding Reputation systems.
In these workshops, we will invite specific experts and thought-leaders in reputation systems and blockchain technology, ensuring that beforehand gathered community perspectives are well reflected and included in a feasible and effective manner.
These workshops will be held on Zoom and will be recorded. Recordings will be made public to the community, ensuring a maximum of transparency of the DF Reputation system Ideation. Each Workshop will focus on a specific topic around the DF Token, making sure that the Workshops stay focused and in scope.
Marketing Strategy
To promote participation in the workshops, we will proceed as follows:
We will announce these workshops on the public channels (Discord, TownHall, Twitter etc.) of SNET and Deep Funding.
For the expert workshops, we will actively search for participants in the community together with BridgeBuilder.io and Swarm.
Our Project Milestones and Cost Breakdown
The proposal is divided into three milestones. We will finalise this proposal before the launch of DF Fund 4, but no more than 3 months after the successful funding. The frequency of the workshops will follow the DF Timeline towards Fund 4.
To make the topics and workshops as relevant as possible, we will coordinate closely with the community, funded applicants and the SNET team.
Milestone 1 - Coordination & Communication
Description:
The first step is the planning, coordination and communication of the workshop series. This includes setting dates and topics as well as outreach to the relevant and interested community members.
Milestone deliverable:
Scheduled Workshops
List of participants
Topics and agenda for each workshop
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 8 hours x 125 USD/h = $1.000 USD
Milestone 2 - Expert Workshops
Description:
We will offer this format on four different dates and invite experts. The workshop series build on each other. Duration of the event: approx. 90min each in Zoom. This milestone includes the preparation, pre-communication, moderation and debriefing of the individual workshops (estimated workload per workshop: 5 hours)
Milestone outcome:
4x Expert Workshops on Zoom.
Meeting Minutes
Video Recordings
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 20 hours x 150 USD/h = $3.000 USD
Milestone 3 - Recommendation Paper
Description:
Based on the discussions and results of the workshop, we will write a summary paper recommending a reputation/contribution score for deep funding. In addition, we will demonstrate how the continuation of this focus group after the completion of this proposal makes sense for the community.
Milestone outcome:
Recommendation paper for DF
Future Plan for the ‘Reputation Focus Group’
Milestone related budget:
Estimated workload: 8 hours x 125 USD/h = $1.000 USD
Risk and Mitigation
We see two main risks for the successful implementation of the proposal: Not enough participants for the workshops and that the outcomes are not relevant enough.
Mitigation: Already during the preparation of the proposal, we spoke with several members of the community and thus recognised the importance of the topic in the first place. The interest already expressed in participating in the workshops makes us feel positive. Furthermore, we remain in close contact with the community and with the DF staff so that we can develop a relevant and implementable recommendation with our recommendation paper.
Voluntary Revenue
There will be no revenue generated.
Open Source
The workshops will be recorded and publicly available.
The recommendation paper will also be publicly available.
Dominik has been active in the blockchain scene for several years and is deeply involved in Cardano's Project Catalyst (the counterpart to DeepFunding). With his company TrustLevel, he has developed various reputation protocols and systems for different use cases. To use this knowledge combined with TrustLevel's experience and network this proposal aims to put the community contribution within DeepFunding on a sound foundation and therefore setting the ground for sustainable and decentralised innovation fund.
To facilitate the proposed workshops, we have already reach out to numerous community members and other proposers of relevant topics and received positive feedback. We will further collaborate with Bridge Builders and other community initiatives like Swarm, RnDao and DF Token group.
Review For: Facilitate a “Reputation – Focus Group”
Expert Review
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.
Total Milestones
3
Total Budget
$5,000 USD
Last Updated
5 May 2024
Milestone 1 - Coordination & Communication
Status
😀 Completed
Description
The first step is the planning, coordination and communication of the workshop series. This includes setting dates and topics as well as outreach to the relevant and interested community members.
We will offer this format on four different dates and invite experts. The workshop series build on each other. Duration of the event: approx. 90min each in Zoom. This milestone includes the preparation, pre-communication, moderation and debriefing of the individual workshops (estimated workload per workshop: 5 hours)
Based on the discussions and results of the workshop, we will write a summary paper recommending a reputation/contribution score for deep funding. In addition, we will demonstrate how the continuation of this focus group after the completion of this proposal makes sense for the community.
Here is the direct link to our final report:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ghLOLB9sUMuyxlQ8GXkSsH10_k0gPN3R90FyD3ZBwm0/edit?usp=sharing
Expert Ratings
Reviews & Ratings
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
Dominik Tilman
Project Owner Apr 11, 2024 | 1:43 AMEdit Comment
Processing...
Please wait a moment!
Here is the direct link to our final report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ghLOLB9sUMuyxlQ8GXkSsH10_k0gPN3R90FyD3ZBwm0/edit?usp=sharing