VBRLteam

Project Owner

Golang SDK for AI Marketplace Integration

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Golang SDK Development for SingularityNET AI Marketplace

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

This proposal seeks funding to develop a Golang SDK for the SingularityNET AI marketplace. The SDK will enable developers to seamlessly interact with critical components like Multi-Party Escrow (MPE), the Registry, and IPFS. Emphasizing performance, security, and ease of use, the SDK will ensure backward compatibility with the existing Python SDK. By addressing current tooling limitations, this project aims to foster wider adoption of SingularityNET's ecosystem and improve scalability for its marketplace.

RFP Guidelines

Golang SDK Development for SingularityNET AI Marketplace

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $60,000 USD
Proposals 6
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Oct. 15, 2024

The SDK will enable seamless integration with key components like Multi-Party Escrow (MPE), the Registry, and IPFS, serving both AI developers and consumers. It must maintain backward compatibility with the existing Python SDK, offer intuitive interfaces for managing identities, organizations, and services, and include strong security and scalability features. Comprehensive documentation is required to ensure ease of use and long-term maintainability.

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
6
Total Budget
$60,000_USD
Last Updated
8 Dec 2024

Milestone 1 - Project Planning and Design

Description

Define project scope, set up development environment, and finalize architecture

Deliverables

Project plan, architecture design documents, and development environment setup.

Budget

$6,000 USD

Success Criterion

Approved architecture and project plan, with a ready-to-develop environment.

Milestone 2 - Core Integration

Description

Implement interaction with MPE, Registry, and IPFS, ensuring Python SDK compatibility.

Deliverables

Functional modules for MPE, Registry, and IPFS. Basic test cases validating integration.

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Successful test execution and stakeholder approval.

Milestone 3 - Scalability Optimization

Description

Optimize for performance and scalability under concurrent operations.

Deliverables

Benchmark results and optimization reports demonstrating efficiency and scalability.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

Achieved performance benchmarks and documented optimization.

Milestone 4 - Documentation Development

Description

Comprehensive documentation covering setup, API references, and examples.

Deliverables

User-friendly documentation with walkthroughs for common use cases.

Budget

$9,000 USD

Success Criterion

Approval by peer reviewers and stakeholders for completeness and clarity.

Milestone 5 - Usability Testing

Description

Collect feedback on API usability, refine SDK based on developer input.

Deliverables

Usability testing reports and updated SDK.

Budget

$6,000 USD

Success Criterion

Positive developer feedback and implemented improvements.

Milestone 6 - Final Testing & Deployment

Description

Conduct end-to-end testing, focusing on error handling, security, and reliability. Prepare for public release.

Deliverables

Final SDK, release notes, and deployment package.

Budget

$12,000 USD

Success Criterion

No critical issues found in testing and approval from SingularityNET stakeholders.

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

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

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.

VBRLteam

Project Owner

Venture Building Research Labs (VBRL) is a highly experienced team with deep expertise in developing for the SingularityNET platform and marketplace.

View Profile