photrek

Project Owner

Reputation & Voting Weight System Development

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

Photrek is uniquely positioned to develop the Reputation and Voting Weight System for Deep Funding and SingularityNET. As authors of the original RFP and DDI RFP and developers of the current MVP, we have spent two years refining governance mechanisms for decentralized reputation systems. Our deep technical and governance expertise ensures a seamless, impactful solution. This scalable, privacy-preserving system enables transparent governance while preventing manipulation. The modular, API-driven architecture supports engagement data collection, identity verification, configurable scoring models, and encrypted reputation scores, ensuring fair and verifiable reputation tracking.

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
4
Total Budget
$140,000_USD
Last Updated
3 Mar 2025

Milestone 1 - System Architecture & API Design

Description

The initial phase focuses on designing the system architecture database schema and standardized APIs to ensure seamless integration with microservices. This includes defining the identity verification process establishing data flow structures and developing API specifications for data collection scoring and verification.

Deliverables

- Finalized system architecture document outlining database structure data flow and integration layers. - API specifications for microservices including authentication reputation scoring and data retrieval. - Identity verification framework supporting wallet authentication and social login validation.

Budget

$30,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Approved system architecture and API documentation ready for implementation. - Identity verification framework tested and validated for initial authentication methods.

Milestone 2 - Microservices & Backend Development

Description

This phase involves the development and integration of core microservices including the Deep Funding Proposal & Voting Portal Microservice and the Blockchain Data Exporter Microservice. These services will collect engagement data track governance participation and integrate on-chain reputation metrics. The backend infrastructure will also be implemented ensuring secure and efficient data storage processing and retrieval.

Deliverables

- Fully functional Deep Funding Proposal & Voting Portal Microservice integration collecting proposal and voting data. - Blockchain Data Exporter Microservice fetching on-chain activity from Cardano and Ethereum. - Implementation of the backend system with a structured SQL database and microservice connections. - Basic reputation score calculation mechanism storing engagement metrics for later refinement.

Budget

$50,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Microservices successfully integrated and providing structured engagement data. - Backend infrastructure deployed, supporting secure data storage and retrieval. - Basic reputation scores generated, demonstrating correct data flow from microservices.

Milestone 3 - Super Admin Dashboard & Reputation Scoring System

Description

This phase focuses on the Super Admin Dashboard allowing governance administrators to configure reputation scoring rules manage microservices and monitor engagement trends. The weighted scoring algorithm will also be refined incorporating customizable reputation parameters and privacy-preserving encryption for sensitive data.

Deliverables

- Super Admin Dashboard UI/UX enabling reputation score configuration analytics and user management. - Configurable reputation scoring system allowing super admins to define and adjust weightings. - Implementation of encrypted reputation score storage ensuring privacy-preserving data handling.

Budget

$40,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Super Admin Dashboard deployed with functional reputation score configuration. - Reputation scoring system successfully integrated, processing real engagement data. - Encrypted reputation scores validated, ensuring privacy is maintained.

Milestone 4 - Testing Deployment & Optimization

Description

The final phase focuses on end-to-end testing system optimization and deployment. The system will undergo real-world testing with Deep Funding governance participants gathering feedback and ensuring data integrity security and performance. Any necessary refinements will be made before the official launch.

Deliverables

- Beta release of the reputation system available for select governance participants. - User testing reports documenting engagement usability and feedback. - Final security and performance optimizations to ensure scalability. - Comprehensive documentation for system operation and governance adoption.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

- Successful testing with real users, confirming accurate identity verification and reputation scoring. - Performance and security benchmarks met, ensuring system reliability. - Final deployment of the system, making it available for governance adoption.

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.

photrek

Project Owner

Photrek will provide exceptional project management and technical innovation to assure success.

View Profile

Juana Attieh

Principal Investigator & Product Manager

View Profile

Account Pending

Project Manager

Account Pending

kenricnelson

President

Stakeholder engagement

View Profile

Account Pending

Technical Lead

Lead developer

Account Pending

Ken Stanton

Developer

System design, testing, and UX

View Profile

Igor Oliveira

Algorithm Lead

Will lead weighted algorithm layer for reputation calculations

View Profile