The proposal aims to refine Deep Funding's digital identity and branding through a comprehensive brand manual. With $3,750 in funding, the project aims to address the challenge of creating cohesive graphic materials and content aligned with their objectives. The solution involves developing a brand manual accessible to community members, ambassadors, and Singularity Foundation employees. This manual will provide resources for creating visual materials and ensuring consistent alignment with the brand identity. The manual will also be translated into multiple languages, enhancing accessibility. The project's milestones include coordination and design, translation, and obtaining approval from the Singularity Foundation and the community. The proposal's risks are centered around potential translator availability. The team comprises a Cardano Ambassador and a graphic designer.
Proposal Description
Compnay Name
None
Service Details
Deep Funding has been experiencing rapid growth, and one of our most significant challenges is refining our digital identity. We aim to develop a comprehensive brand manual that enables effortless access for everyone, including community members, ambassadors, and Singularity Foundation employees. This manual will provide essential elements for creating visual materials and ensuring alignment with the brand and product identity.
Problem Description
As mentioned earlier, a primary challenge in marketing and promoting Deep Funding revolves around creating graphic materials and content that align with our established objectives. These materials need to proficiently convey the intended message while exuding professionalism, and they should be supported by a dissemination strategy that seamlessly aligns with this high level of professionalism.
Solution Description
Developing a brand manual replete with professional and high-quality resources, open to all individuals for crafting their graphic elements and essential content, will indisputably contribute to nurturing a more decentralized approach to publicity.
Let's consider this scenario: If an ambassador wishes to promote an event to discuss the initiative or proposals today, or to design a cover for their video addressing the recent rule change or conducting an interview with a proponent, they are compelled not only to invest time in organizing, coordinating, and editing but also to dedicate time to editing graphic elements (which they may not even be proficient in) and generating the necessary components for these materials.
This approach ensures the dissemination of messages and dissemination terms in a clear and precise manner, obviating the need to direct individuals to various documents. All aspects related to marketing can be conveniently accessed here.
The manual itself will feature an index to enable users to locate the manual in various languages. In this proposal, and with the collaborative efforts of our ambassadors, we will actively pursue the translation of this manual into five distinct languages. The selection process for these languages was a significant challenge, leading us to base our decision on the six official UN languages. The team will provide versions in English and Spanish, with the remaining versions being offered as paid activities for our ambassadors. The opportunity to expand the covered languages may arise through private or ambassador program initiatives.
The final rendition of the branding manual must receive initial approval from the Singularity Foundation, followed by endorsement from the community during one of Deep Funding's "Town Halls," thereby allowing the community to participate in the final approval of the project.
The project, which includes design changes, approvals, recommendations, translations, and management, is estimated to require approximately 2.5 months of work.
Milestone & Budget
Milestone 1 - Coordination and design $1700 (One month)
Milestone 2 - Translation in the 6 UN official languages by the ambassadors (one month)
English - By the team
Spanish - By the team
French - $100
Chinese - $100
Arabic - $100
Russian - $100
Milestone 3 - Obtaining Approval of the Brand Manual from the Singularity Foundation and Community via a Town Hall Session. ($1750) (2 weeks)
The third milestone sum is not intended for hosting the Town Hall. It signifies the community's endorsement of the completed work and the comprehensive remuneration for our efforts. This approach mirrors the operational model of several marketing agencies. Initial deposits are made, and upon the final product's endorsement, the payment process reaches completion.
Revenue Sharing
By remaining open and accessible to all, the document embodies a valuable asset for each individual.
Deep Funding has been experiencing rapid growth, and one of our most significant challenges is refining our digital identity. We aim to develop a comprehensive brand manual that enables effortless access for everyone, including community members, ambassadors, and Singularity Foundation employees. This manual will provide essential elements for creating visual materials and ensuring alignment with the brand and product identity.
Funding Amount
3,850
The Problem to be Solved
As mentioned earlier, a primary challenge in marketing and promoting Deep Funding revolves around creating graphic materials and content that align with our established objectives. These materials need to proficiently convey the intended message while exuding professionalism, and they should be supported by a dissemination strategy that seamlessly aligns with this high level of professionalism.
Our Solution
Developing a brand manual replete with professional and high-quality resources, open to all individuals for crafting their graphic elements and essential content, will indisputably contribute to nurturing a more decentralized approach to publicity.
Let's consider this scenario: If an ambassador wishes to promote an event to discuss the initiative or proposals today, or to design a cover for their video addressing the recent rule change or conducting an interview with a proponent, they are compelled not only to invest time in organizing, coordinating, and editing but also to dedicate time to editing graphic elements (which they may not even be proficient in) and generating the necessary components for these materials.
This approach ensures the dissemination of messages and dissemination terms in a clear and precise manner, obviating the need to direct individuals to various documents. All aspects related to marketing can be conveniently accessed here.
The manual itself will feature an index to enable users to locate the manual in various languages. In this proposal, and with the collaborative efforts of our ambassadors, we will actively pursue the translation of this manual into five distinct languages. The selection process for these languages was a significant challenge, leading us to base our decision on the six official UN languages. The team will provide versions in English and Spanish, with the remaining versions being offered as paid activities for our ambassadors. The opportunity to expand the covered languages may arise through private or ambassador program initiatives.
The final rendition of the branding manual must receive initial approval from the Singularity Foundation, followed by endorsement from the community during one of Deep Funding's "Town Halls," thereby allowing the community to participate in the final approval of the project.
The project, which includes design changes, approvals, recommendations, translations, and management, is estimated to require approximately 2.5 months of work.
Our Project Milestones and Cost Breakdown
Milestone 1 - Coordination and design $1700 (One month)
Milestone 2 - Translation in the 6 UN official languages by the ambassadors (one month)
English - By the team
Spanish - By the team
French - $100
Chinese - $100
Arabic - $100
Russian - $100
Milestone 3 - Obtaining Approval of the Brand Manual from the Singularity Foundation and Community via a Town Hall Session. ($1750) (2 weeks)
The third milestone sum is not intended for hosting the Town Hall. It signifies the community's endorsement of the completed work and the comprehensive remuneration for our efforts. This approach mirrors the operational model of several marketing agencies. Initial deposits are made, and upon the final product's endorsement, the payment process reaches completion.
Risk and Mitigation
The sole potential risk within the proposal lies in the eventuality of being unable to secure a translator for a specific language among those mentioned. Should such a circumstance arise, the responsibility of selecting an alternative language for translation will be delegated to the community.
The primary rationale behind the selection of the six official UN languages was rooted in the pursuit of an objective criterion that remains impervious to subjectivity.
Voluntary Revenue
By remaining open and accessible to all, the document embodies a valuable asset for each individual.
Our Team
Mauro Andreoli. Cardano Ambassador. Lawyer. As a member of the Singularity community and a dedicated contributor to the Deep Funding initiative, I am committed to advancing the goals and principles of our community-driven project. My active involvement as a worker within the Deep Funding initiative allows me to contribute my expertise and passion to foster innovation and support deserving projects within the AI ecosystem. Together, we strive to create a brighter future through collaborative efforts and meaningful contributions.
Lucas Muccilli. Graphic Designer. National University of El Litoral. Content Designer at Innovatio and the European Cardano Community, currently working in a marketing Agency.
Review For: Open Source Branding manual for Deep Funding
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.
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.
Proposal Summary
Verifying...
Please wait a moment!
Receive notifications on Deep Funding
Send a message
Sending…
We're on it!
You'll receive an email reply within 1-2 days.
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