PASYRLTD

Project Owner

TRUSTSCORE AI:Reputation based voting 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

This proposal outlines the development of TrustScore AI, a modular reputation-based voting system for Deep Funding & SNEl. The system will provide a decentralized, AI-powered architecture for reputation scoring and weighted voting, ensuring transparent, fair, and manipulation-resistant governance. TrustScore AI operates as a decentralized reputation system that dynamically assigns a TrustScore to participants based on their historical accuracy, engagement, and voting behavior. This score determines voting weight, ensuring that credible and active participants have more influence over governance decisions.

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
5
Total Budget
$100,000_USD
Last Updated
3 Mar 2025

Milestone 1 - AI Development & Scoring System

Description

The foundation of TrustScore AI begins with the development of the reputation scoring engine. This phase focuses on designing and implementing AI models that assess user credibility based on past engagements voting accuracy and proposal success rates. The system will leverage machine learning algorithms to dynamically adjust TrustScores ensuring fair and transparent governance.

Deliverables

Deliverable: AI-driven TrustScore computation engine that dynamically adjusts user reputation based on engagement voting history and proposal success rates.

Budget

$30,000 USD

Success Criterion

AI models successfully analyze and assign TrustScores based on predefined reputation metrics. • TrustScore updates dynamically in response to user behavior. • Initial testing confirms fairness, accuracy, and resistance to manipulation.

Milestone 2 - Decentralized Storage & Identity Integration

Description

To prevent Sybil attacks and ensure secure identity verification this phase integrates Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) using frameworks like Ceramic Network ION and Polygon ID. Additionally all proposal and voting records will be stored immutably on IPFS and Filecoin guaranteeing transparency and data integrity without centralized control.

Deliverables

Deliverable: Secure Decentralized Identity (DID) framework and immutable proposal storage system.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

DID system is fully integrated using Ceramic Network, ION, or Polygon ID. • Proposal and voting records are stored on IPFS/Filecoin with verified immutability. • Sybil attack prevention mechanisms are functional and tested.

Milestone 3 - Voting Engine Development

Description

This phase focuses on building the on-chain voting mechanism that calculates weighted votes based on TrustScores. The system will implement Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) and Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) consensus models to prevent manipulation and ensure scalability. The voting engine will also feature real-time result validation through decentralized verification nodes.

Deliverables

Deliverable: On-chain weighted voting system that factors in TrustScore for decision-making.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Smart contract-enabled voting process is fully functional. • Weighted votes are calculated correctly based on TrustScore. • Consensus validation mechanisms (BFT & DAG) prevent tampering and ensure scalability.

Milestone 4 - Smart Contract Development & Security Audit

Description

rustScore AI will rely on Ethereum/SingularityNet smart contracts to execute governance decisions securely. This phase includes developing and testing smart contracts for proposal submission voting execution and TrustScore adjustments. Additionally third-party security audits will be conducted to identify vulnerabilities and ensure robust tamper-proof implementation.

Deliverables

ecure audited smart contracts for governance operations TrustScore adjustments and voting execution.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Smart contracts deployed on Ethereum/SingularityNet, successfully executing governance processes. • Security audits completed with no critical vulnerabilities. • Contracts are resistant to manipulation and external attacks.

Milestone 5 - UI/UX Development & API Integration

Description

The final phase focuses on creating an intuitive user interface (UI) for seamless participation in governance activities. This includes designing a user-friendly dashboard integrating APIs for real-time reputation tracking and ensuring smooth interaction between AI models smart contracts and decentralized identity systems.

Deliverables

User-friendly governance dashboard with seamless API integration for TrustScore tracking and proposal management.

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

UI/UX design is intuitive, enabling smooth user interactions. • APIs successfully fetch and display real-time TrustScore and voting data. • End-to-end testing ensures seamless integration between frontend, AI models, and blockchain components

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.

PASYRLTD

Project Owner

Pasyr Ltd. brings together a team of AI engineers, software developers, machine learning experts, and blockchain specialists, each playing a critical role in the project.

View Profile

foverosatm

CTO/ML Engineer

He leads AI-driven TrustScore, blockchain integration, security, and UI. They ensure fair, scalable, and decentralized governance, preventing fraud with DID, ZKPs, BFT, and smart contracts

View Profile

olajide aina

CEO/UI-UX Design

He drives the vision, strategy, and adoption while designing an intuitive TrustScore AI interface. He ensures seamless user experience, governance transparency, and Web3 integration for mass adoption

View Profile

Abiodun Adegbajesu

CMO/CISO

He drives branding, adoption, and security, ensuring TrustScore AI is marketable while securing governance with ZKPs, BFT, and audits. He handles growth, risk, and compliance in Web3

View Profile

Ayomishuga

Project Manager

She oversees timelines, deliverables, and team coordination, ensuring TrustScore AI meets goals. Also manages resources, risks, and stakeholder communication, keeping development on track.

View Profile