Wootzapp is an app-store integrated into the browser that allows users to pick and choose data foundries to contribute their data to. At the same time, data marketplaces are able to access mobile users with customized workflows that are specific to their offerings. We are a Solana Colosseum Global Hackathon winner and an Alliance Accelerator startup.
Wootzapp will build extensions for SingularityNET (and incentivized by your own token) for users in Asian countries to engage in data labeling and contribute to the corpus. We are open source and our proof of work is here - https://github.com/wootzapp/wootz-browser
Develop a MeTTa language corpus to enable the training or fine-tuning of an LLM and/or LoRAs aimed at supporting developers by providing a natural language coding assistant for the MeTTa language.
Develop a MeTTa language corpus to enable the training or fine-tuning of an LLM and/or LoRAs aimed at supporting developers by providing a natural language coding assistant for the MeTTa language.
Proposal Description
Company Name (if applicable)
Wootzapp
Project details
We are Wootzapp - an app-store that pays users. We are a Solana Colosseum Global Hackathon winner and an Alliance Accelerator startup.
Wootzapp is an app-store integrated into the browser that allows users to pick and choose data foundries to contribute their data to. At the same time, data marketplaces are able to access mobile users with customized workflows that are specific to their offerings.
Our Tech & Core Innovation: We were able to achieve this by forking Chromium and re-building the browser with a first-of-its-kind app store layer, we allow AI marketplaces to quickly build complex data & rewards workflow right inside the browser.
We are basically taking the same approach to data that Robinhood took to stock investing. Instead of enabling it only for professional traders who work fulltime in trading and invest in expensive tools/contracts to get started, Robinhood built a product that enabled a gamified experience for people who wanted to invest pennies.
With the Wootzapp browser, we are disrupting the data business in the same way. Anyone who has a browser can earn a few tokens per day by spending a few minutes.
Problem: There are already a number of data foundries & brokers which try to generate this data, but they have a hard time sourcing & managing the workforce to do this at scale.
Current Solutions: OpenAI and others use ScaleAI to do this today. However, ScaleAI needs a multi-million dollar contract and significant lead time to get started. Smaller competitors to ScaleAI dont have the economies of scale to generate the same diversity of data.
Enter Wootzapp: We answered this problem, by tapping into the gig economy, realizing millions of people were spending a lot of idle time on the browser, which could be gamified and monetized. Wootzapp is an app-store integrated into the browser that allows users to pick and choose data foundries to contribute their data to. At the same time, data marketplaces are able to access mobile users by building customized workflows into extensions.
Check back later during the Feedback & Selection period for the RFP that is proposal is applied to.
Total Milestones
2
Total Budget
$35,000 USD
Last Updated
3 Dec 2024
Milestone 1 - Extension Creation Kickoff
Description
We went through a LOT OF EFFORT in ripping out the c++ core and building in Rust-CXX bridge primitves (through mojo - the chrome IPC).
We will integrate SingularityNET's core primitives and token capability into the Wootzapp browser core.
typical work effort - https://github.com/wootzapp/wootz-browser/pull/169/files
Deliverables
The wootzapp codebase on https://github.com/wootzapp/wootz-browser will have your APIs available to used as extension by anyone.
Budget
$20,000 USD
Milestone 2 - User rollout and incentivization
Description
This amount will be distributed to users for corpus creation.
Deliverables
This amount will be distributed to users for corpus creation.
Crowdsourcing platform with potential for scalable data collection, but misaligned with the RFP’s core focus on creating a high-quality NL-to-MeTTa corpus. Insufficient details on plan.
Expert Review 2
Overall
1.0
Compliance with RFP requirements1.0
Solution details and team expertise1.0
Value for money1.0
This does not address the topic of the RFP at all
Expert Review 3
Overall
2.0
Compliance with RFP requirements3.0
Solution details and team expertise2.0
Value for money2.0
The proposer aims to incentivize individuals for corpus labeling. Yet the proposer discusses use of a generic browser app without providing specifics targeted at the RFP.
Expert Review (anonymous)
Final Group Rating
Rating Categories
Compliance with RFP requirements
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.
Solution details and team expertise
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.
Value for money
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.
About Expert 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.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Join the Discussion (0)
Please create account or login to post comments.