Completed

Donald Nguyen

Project Owner

Promote and Translate DeepFunding, and SingularityNet documents to Vietnamese community

Project for Round 3
Funding Awarded $950 USD
Funding Pools Marketing initiatives
Milestones 3 / 3 Completed

Status

Overall Status
🥳 Completed & Paid
Funding Transfered
$950_USD
Max Funding Amount
$950_USD

Funding Schedule

View Milestones

Milestone Release 1	$500 USD	Transfer Complete	31 Dec 2023
Milestone Release 2	$400 USD	Transfer Complete	15 Feb 2024
Milestone Release 3	$50 USD	Transfer Complete	01 Mar 2024

Overview

"Blockchain Documentation Translator" aims to break down language barriers within the blockchain space, focusing on the Vietnamese community. With funding of $950, their team composed of blockchain enthusiasts from Vietnam and Australia will translate important documents, guides, news, and whitepapers from projects like Deepfunding and SingularityNET. This effort is particularly vital for Vietnamese investors who lack English proficiency and struggle to access crucial information about projects. The milestones encompass team recruitment, document translation, and project promotion. The proposal acknowledges risks such as inaccurate translation and market interest fluctuation, offering solutions like careful hiring, targeted community engagement, and prudent fund management. Donald Nguyen, with experience in Catalysts and blockchain marketing, leads the project.

Proposal Description

Compnay Name

Blockchain Documentation Translator

Service Details

Our team is based in Vietnam and Australia where contains members who are all blockchain enthusiasts. We aim to lower the language barrier for investors and new users to enhance blockchain space and documentations, especially for Vietnamese community, one of the biggest cryptocurrency community in the world.

Problem Description

Our goal is to solve the language barrier between new users and blockchain documentations. Many investors who are really into blockchain and cryptocurrency market, but they have a little knowledge about English, hence, they are not be able to read and do research about projects, and that is the main reason why our project come to help!

Solution Description

We will publish some of the translated versions of the documentations about guides, news, and whitepaper from Deepfunding and SingularityNET for Vietnamese community so that they can have a better understand on how Deepfunding and SingularityNET work. Moreover, we will also promote the importance and the role of Deepfunding in the blockchain space to more Vietnamese investors so that they can comprehend fully about Deepfunding mechanism and how it works.

Milestone & Budget

1. Milestone 1: 1 week

- Invite more translators and human resources for the team

- Choose relevant documents which need to be translated

- Divide works for the team based on their abilities.

2. Milestone 2: 3 weeks

- Translate all of the important documents (whitepapers, guides)

- Publish some of the important documents to the community

3. Milestone 3: 2 weeks

- Doing reports for the outcomes of the project

- Promote SingularityNET and DeepFunding in several Vietnamese communities.

Long Description

Company Name

Blockchain Documentation Translator

Summary

Funding Amount

950

Breakdown of budget

Milestone 1: $500

In order to hire 2 translators with an appropriate language level as well as technology knowledge, we will spend $250 for each of the translator each of them will have to translate 5 documentations which cost $50 each.

Milestone 2: $400

This will be the fees for marketing and publishing our documentations in 4 big vietnamese communities about DeepFunding. I have chosen 4 communities which are well known in different fields in blockchain:

Cardano Vietnam Catalyst
Gamingfy TV
AiOi community
Leduy Crypto

Each of them I will spend $100 as marketing fees

Milestone 3: $50

In this part, I will just need to accumulate the outcomes from the projects and hire a designer to publish my outcomes and design it to be more visible for the community.

The Problem to be Solved

Our Solution

Our Project Milestones and Cost Breakdown

1. Milestone 1: 1 week

- Invite more translators and human resources for the team

- Choose relevant documents which need to be translated

- Divide works for the team based on their abilities.

2. Milestone 2: 3 weeks

- Translate all of the important documents (whitepapers, guides)

- Publish some of the important documents to the community

3. Milestone 3: 2 weeks

- Doing reports for the outcomes of the project

- Promote SingularityNET and DeepFunding in several Vietnamese communities.

Risk and Mitigation

Some of the risks we may suffer:

- Translators have insufficient knowledge about blockchain which leads to misunderstanding in translation

- The Vietnamese Communities will not interest in gaining more knowledge about projects in bear market

- Funds risk when cryptocurrencies price are fluctuated

Our solutions:

- Carefully choosing and interview employees before officially hire them. Since I am Vietnamese, I will proofread the translations before publishing them.

- Doing research about which communities will have a high chance of interest in our products. Especially the Vietnamese Cardano blockchain team who have thousands of members who are building taking partting in the Cardano ecosystem.

- Manage the funds with necessary actions when required to maintain the funds to implement the project and havingingfunds for worst case.

Voluntary Revenue

Our Team

Donald Nguyen:

I am a PA in Cardano Catalysts in 2 funds and having experience in translating educational documents for Vietnamese University. MoreoveIxperience in blockchthe blockchainry for 3 years, partaking part Marketing projects and being Community Moderator which can help me a lot in implementing my own proposal.

Activity Summary

Milestones

3

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.

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.

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

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
$950_USD
Last Updated
27 May 2025

Milestone 1 -

Status

😀 Completed

Description

- Invite more translators and human resources for the team - Choose relevant documents which need to be translated - Divide works for the team based on their abilities.

Deliverables

Budget

$500 USD

Link URL

Link 1 Reviewer's report

Milestone 2 -

Status

😀 Completed

Description

- Translate all of the important documents (whitepapers, guides) - Publish some of the important documents to the community

Deliverables

Budget

$400 USD

Link URL

Link 1 Reviewer's report

Milestone 3 -

Status

😀 Completed

Description

- Doing reports for the outcomes of the project - Promote SingularityNET and DeepFunding in several Vietnamese communities.

Deliverables

Budget

$50 USD

Link URL

Link 1 Reviewer's report

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 allFeasibility

0.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competitionDesirabilty

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 allFeasibility

0.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competitionDesirabilty

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.