Expert Rating 3.6

VBRLteam

Project Owner

Golang SDK for AI Marketplace Integration

Expert Rating

3.6

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request $60,000 USD
RFP Guidelines Golang SDK Development for SingularityNET AI Marketplace

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

Complete & Awarded

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $60,000 USD
Proposals 5
Awarded Projects 1

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

Our Team

Venture Building Research Labs (VBRL) is a highly experienced team with deep expertise in developing for the SingularityNET platform and marketplace. Our contributions include, but are not limited to: Updating the JavaScript SDKs: Ensuring seamless integration and functionality for developers interacting with the SingularityNET ecosystem. Developing Onboarding Tools: Creation of tools like the Text User Interface (TUI) to simplify the onboarding process for developers and organizations. Ecosystem Building: Actively contributing to the growth and enhancement of the SingularityNET ecosystem by fostering collaboration and creating tools that empower developers. Developer Relations: Building strong relationships with the developer community, giving us an in-depth understanding of their needs and challenges. Our combined expertise in ecosystem building, developer relations, and technical innovation positions us uniquely to deliver a robust and scalable Golang SDK that directly addresses the needs of the SingularityNET developer community. VBRL is committed to advancing SingularityNET’s mission by enabling developers to build and deploy AI services with ease and efficiency.

Company Name (if applicable)

Venture Building Research Labs (VBRL)

Project details

The SingularityNET AI marketplace connects developers and consumers to deploy and access AI services. Despite its potential, developer tools such as the Python SDK lack scalability, modern features, and user-friendliness.

The Golang SDK will bridge these gaps by offering:

Backward Compatibility: Smooth migration for Python SDK users.
Seamless Integration: Reliable interaction with MPE, Registry, and IPFS.
Performance & Scalability: Leveraging Golang's efficiency to support high transaction volumes.
Developer Usability: Clear API design with comprehensive documentation and examples.
Security & Reliability: Secure encryption, robust error handling, and operational stability.
Modular Architecture: Flexible for future updates and integrations.

Impact:
The Golang SDK will lower entry barriers, encourage innovation, and expand SingularityNET’s user base, reinforcing its position as a leading AI marketplace.

Open Source Licensing

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology License

Activity Summary

Milestones

6

Total

Discussion

0

Total Comments

Reviews

2

Total Posted

Project Team

1

Total People

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

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

Group Expert Rating (Final)

Overall

3.6

Feasibility 3.7
Desirabilty 4.7
Usefulness 3.3

Expert Review 1
Overall

4.0
- Compliance with RFP requirements 4.0
- Solution details and team expertise 5.0
- Value for money 3.0
Overall, the proposal looks good, but the description of the milestones is too short, with only one stage allocated for development, which is quite small for such a project.

Expert Review 2
Overall

3.0
- Compliance with RFP requirements 4.0
- Solution details and team expertise 4.0
- Value for money 3.0
No clear description of the team, no experience with GO is presented, very abstract description of the work stages, from which it is impossible to evaluate the future work in detail.

There was not enough team description and detailed work plan to better evaluate the team.

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

3.6
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

3.3
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

3.7
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

4.7

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 Conclusion(optional)

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