SingularityNET: Deep Funding | Community Governance – November 16, 2022

All right, so we’re just started with the community governance meeting of this week. Except me, there are four other people here, Tivo, Peter, Kenrik and Pito. A number of usual faces are otherwise engaged, so cannot make it so it’s a small but very nice group. We were just before putting the record button, we were just starting to discuss our feedback on the deep funding governance experiment that we concluded last week. Kenrik was just explaining about degrading reputations. What I was going to emphasize is that in any kind of system, negative feedback is important. Positive feedback loops tend to be unstable. So you have to think about what a negative feedback loop would be on your reputation. And in particular, I think a kind of neutral one over time where you just your reputation decays over time is important for two reasons. One, you want to base the reputation on what people have contributed recently. And two, you want new people in the community to be able to have a chance to build up a meaningful reputation rather than always being behind people who joined the community at an earlier date. So for instance, one place I saw that within the cryptocurrency community is the blockchain I, I owed where they’re using a reputation system in their consensus process on the blockchain itself. And they had built into that decay process on that reputation. Yeah, I think it makes a lot of sense. I think time is of essence in reputation. And on one hand, it will strengthen somebody’s reliability and believability, I would say, if he has been a long-term contributor. But on the other hand, we have to ensure that it doesn’t block new people from surfacing that might be at this moment in time even more valuable contributors than somebody who has been contributing for a long time but is not doing that much anymore. So yeah, totally agree that. So that would be an interesting ingredient. By the way, we also have negative feedback there. You can give negative comments to people which was actually almost not done in this round with three exceptions or something. But I expect over time that might also become a stronger measure that, especially if at some point it’s obvious that people try to gain the system for instance or are not really engaged or whatever, then also giving people negative comments might help. And the tricky thing here is that all these things might also be used by for the wrong reasons. So if I will try to gain the system, I could create 100 comments myself or script it or whatever and then make a script that I will give negative comments to all the existing messages. Yeah, and that will probably be some kind of force and counter force that we have to work with. At the early days in Gimbal apps, when talking about this discussion, I think this was also the same thing that the reputation should decay to incentivize the active people to stay active also. Yeah, that’s a good one. Yeah, it’s also a motivation to keep working. Yeah, okay. The good thing, what I like maybe most about the methodology of a reputation system is that you have a lot of data. And you’re not forced or limited to use that data as is, but you’re able at any point in time to tweak what data is more or less important based on your experiences. And of course, you can build processes around that as well to avoid centralized use in an undesired way and that will come if we grow to maturity, but at least with all the data you have still, if you learn, if you have new insights, if new things happen like somebody wanted to gain the system for instance, you always have certain means to counter that. So that is what I really like about more sophisticated reputation systems. Right, Tifford, did you have any feedback on the results of the, I saw you unmute for a moment on the governance experiment? And you talked about, and on the one the new Tiff and round, what could be two differently, I just was wondering if it’s a place to ask a new wanting model and then some scale here perhaps he can share light is that even physical, which is related to the dynamic voting results, the more, the more you can do the best to add, the more moments you need and how to create the scale of that. I can show it, but if it’s not related to current topic, or agenda, then I will. I feel free to show you think that clarifies things so we did make a kind of algorithm that accounts for rating that accounts for the number of people. So it’s the accounts for the average rate, I should say, of a proposal on the portal, it accounts for the number of people that have actually rated the, I won’t use the word voting, but rated the proposal and it accounts for the total number of proposal being submitted. So I did manage to put that in some kind of form without making it overly complex and I hope I succeeded in that. Perhaps it kind of really establishes, but this is, these are basically the main parameters, so mean what, I think it’s somewhat similar, but I was looking more at the voting power because I took an example to try it out on the catalyst proposals, where proposal amount is like, yeah, there was 500 proposals, like the sum of voting was like, I don’t know, 5 billion, I’m actually even more maybe 500 billion. And then I had an idea that perhaps 20% of staging is enough, which means that you divide your entire partition into like five parts. And I’m like, yeah, you take the 20% of that full amount and then you divide it with all the proposals until the proposals run out and actually the six stages were actually the right amount. And then also I staged the total funds, so instead of using the the custard funds, I used the total funds, so I had two different ideas. I didn’t automate it all the promises, so that if you change the number here, it actually doesn’t change any results, that was another eight hours of work and I thought I just tried to do it in an ugly way. So at first I thought this is very similar to what I was doing, but I’m not quite sure what you mean, but the stages. Yeah, so I guess when I share it, it’s easier. So this page now shows all the proposals in that integration. So the first approach was to filter them by the stage, so basically when 20% of the stage was one 150 million or something, I think I said it correctly. 1.500, 1.6 billion, for example, and then it starts and everything gets remains the same for now, like the idea was that it’s still not clear what your definition of the stages. So basically if 1.6 billion is a stage and then the so stage was the 20% of so this number total funds of the budget times the person. So the so the person gives like how many times you want to slice the proposal into different stages. And the stage is like the. The stage isn’t the right word then you’re in other words it’s sort of like a quantile of your and you’re just ranking it by the size of the proposals or you’re ranking it by the order that they were voted in. Is the sequence but then yes you crop it. I guess the stage is not right so the crop size something. And then basically then the crop sizes for the first example it would be these three proposals get to be the first group. It’s it’s put into the sequence of starting to the highest amounts and then because in one group you feel 1.6 billion so first three proposals are there. So then the group starts again the next group of the highest amount that proposals are now this tree and so on and you kind of reach to the end where most of the proposal just filled thousand dollars. And then I still apply the same logic of what the catalyst has, that the most yes votes are like a total yes, yes, most minus no votes and the rest of the result gets to the top and think that was the goal and then you apply the same way but then another person was how much how many person so the multipliers also I put the 10% how much more votes you need to have over other stages so if you are in the stage one group you are the highest cost and you request like 1 million and another proposal and both get 10 million votes positive results let’s say then or if you are in the last stage so it’s just times 6 like the the lowest stage of the wrong the lowest group size proposal will get then 20% times 6 more it has to have 20% times 6 less votes than the highest one okay if you could pause a moment you know I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here but let me see if I can capture part of the essence of it you’re ranking the proposals by how much they’re requesting the funds and you’re splitting those that ranking by how much it was to need to five different groups and then if I think what I’m saying is that if if a proposal or for a proposal asked for more money they also have to get more support from the community to be allocated that funds is that part of what you’re trying to get across yeah but maybe we could back up I’m interested to hear what John has to say about the process that was actually used in this round and you know in particular how you use this reputation system and how you use the quadratic voting to do the selection yes so so one one other thing one other comment here at Tivo first of all I think it’s interesting because previously we had two pools one for 150k plus proposals one for max 40k proposals or 150k minus I should say and one for 50k minus proposals now we have everything in one pool so this is an interesting point that whether we want to have a similar principle that higher valued proposals also would require more support so that’s an interesting thought one difference with between catalysts and deep funding is that we have grade voting so that complicates things a little bit more what kind of voting do you have grade voting and also the reputation points on the other the the rating on the portal is actually also graded so it’s from minus 100 to 100 instead of four are against and technically it doesn’t matter in a sense because that is more of an overlay which filters proposals into different groups based on the configuration I just use an example to split it into six but the results I didn’t really get to was that actually 80% is not good enough for a member who probably have to split it in a way more smaller group sizes to actually have an impact on the smaller proposals to make it up up and you can multiply the rankings of all the results and like you can always have the reputation already applied and then you apply the multiply of the group size yeah I’m just I’m just concerned that it’s going to be a little bit confusing for people to understand what the system is you know I think you’re wanting to it’s good to have new new wants and how you make the decisions and do a nice design but simplicity has to be part of the design too that’s that needs to be a requirement um now you saying it for deep fun too when when you say you only have one group you’re referring to your plans for this deep fun too or you’re referring to the election you just did sorry sorry if I say that I have what sorry if I have what funds well you said that you’re only going to have one group another way I’m referring to the next uh rather than deep funding yeah right okay so um what drove the decision to have one group rather than two groups or two will proposal size um well I think the first driver was um that it turns out that we had one group of max 40k and coincidentally 90 percent of the proposals were exactly 40k so I’d like to challenge the proposals to really think about what they actually need and come up with proper amount that’s one thing a lot of thing is that as it stands right now we already have five pools so I’m also uh we’re not we haven’t decided yet on the to be awarded amount but I want to avoid that pools will be come too diluted um and uh and the third one would actually simply be uh experimentation so the reason why we had two pools in the first round is that we wanted to stimulate um proposals with more substantial uh solutions and what we learned which is different today but but at the beginning of this year I think was still the case that in catalyst at at least what I was informed is that the community tends to award mostly the smaller proposals and we wanted also to have some kind of motivation for our community to say well we think it’s good to also award a few higher proposals yeah I do actually think that um um one of the things I’ve recommended in the catalyst process is that for each challenge the challenge team be allowed to set a minimum and maximum budget for the proposals they have they they have a maximum budget for the whole challenge but it seems to me that problems arise in people either proposing too much or proposing not enough if if if you propose too much you may have an outstanding proposal that people really want to support but you know if you get ranked first then you can possibly be the only project that gets awarded and that maybe maybe doesn’t meet the intent of the challenge and on the other hand uh you may have a terrific idea and be willing to do it at a small cost but at some point um you know there’s literally projects that have requested between one to a hundred dollars and and then what do you what do you fund it the overhead to manage that project is going to cost more than what you’re providing is funded so it you know um there so I think it’s a diversity in what people can propose is good but there just need to be some limits on um so it’s been my recommendation that that that you have kind of a minimum and maximum on what can be proposed yeah okay that that’s interesting um actually one of the things that I thought about doing for today I’m not sure if we should because we are in quite a short quite a few people here a small number of people um is going over the different pools that we have outlined and see if we can come up with some specific conditions and one of the pools can be for things that would have existing surfaces and that they would then onboard on our platform and maybe tweak a little bit if needed um and that would be a totally different situation than somebody would make something from scratch um so it would also apply for different amounts um and that it could actually I can imagine that for a thousand dollars you could already do something there Peter and me had some discussions about the accurate uh the most accurate uh amount there um whereas if you would need to develop a whole new surface and maybe a solution to come with it etc that’s a whole different ball game so yeah I hear what you say uh one answer to that would be wouldn’t the community choice be sufficient enough to regulate that or would we need to install uh hard rules to accomplish that so I agree and in most cases it would not be beneficial to have one project eating up all of the funding um on the other hand if it will be sufficiently brilliant uh maybe it should um and at the same time yeah if somebody asks too little you can ask you can ask yourself if he really contemplates the solution and if you will be able to uh to accomplish anything with with that uh that amount but then again there’s also the the community who can make that decision and I’ll ask a question uh Jan because yeah I saw that uh in in the agenda that this was mentioned to uh on board existing services and I think Peter Elfink also mentioned it in a discord uh uh call a couple of weeks ago this idea of of onboarding existing services yeah I think it’s a great idea um but um uh I think the uh quality of such a contribution would be in the testing so it would be you know onboarding technically is one thing but then you have to test it really well whether it works so then you just mention an amount of uh you know maximum amount of $1000 I think that would be very low if you want to test a lot bitly yeah yeah I actually agree $1000 is not much um also if you want to divide it between different people so I can imagine a community member that doesn’t have development uh background um will help in exploring and finding and reaching out and motivating developers to to to come to the platform there’s always some work related to onboarding the the the the service onto the platform um that might be another person um and then of course there’s the the developer uh who we also want to motivate uh even if he wouldn’t even if he wouldn’t in the the rare situation it wouldn’t have to do anything because the service is completely ready we could still use that as a little motivation to to actually um get activate um as you say there is um testing that is a very good point so this we could add to the the form that we will will use to submit such a proposal to come up with a few testing scenarios so what will this so what kind of tests would this uh um service need to fulfill in order to accomplish its goals and we can make that part of the conditions before our awards are being uh this burst so that’s a very very valuable one um there’s another scenario where you do have an AI service but it’s not um API based it’s not ready to be called by an API and yeah that could even amount to total refactoring of the initial service which would be a very substantial effort potentially yeah yeah I agree totally so maybe that would also be uh make more clear in the um you know the conditions for a proposal that that this technical point of having an API already or not and how this would be integrated yeah exactly so um these are the kind of things we thought but so we thought that first for now when we came up with the idea we thought maybe we can have a fixed amount for existing services um but because of the reasons just outlined uh we thought well every situation is different and um yeah especially for the first round let’s just see where people come up with what people come up with and what the average the mean is and yeah and take it from there on and and and use those learnings in the next round uh after this one so it will be a learning round for existing services and maybe we’ll encounter things that we didn’t think of think of before but yeah it may I hope it will activate community members to help us find appropriate service and service developers uh and ideally you would turn into a very quick turnaround in actually having these services uh onboarded and we will also the idea was to have these services to do the disbursement only after the service is actually uh present on the on the platform and while I’m saying that I’m also starting to doubt because if you would need uh 200 hours of refactoring a service then I’m not sure if we can still say um that you’ll only get this burst at the end uh when the server when the service is actually landed on the on the platform uh but you can also argue that this is a kind of a big gray area between what is an existing service and what is a new service yeah uh you might be able to think of it in three phases you know a first phase would be like a prototyping proof where you wouldn’t necessarily expect a team to put the service on the platform um but what you would do is to have them prove that the service is going to be a valley that would be phase one and then the phase two would be a larger amount of money to actually develop the service into a product that can be hosted on the server and actually um made available to the public through the marketplace and then phase three would be some kind of um commercial partnership to actually drive sales and and drive customer interest and um actually boost it to the point that it’s a profitable service and and phase one so so phase three would already um I think a service provider would already be motivated to do that by himself or herself because it is still up to you that already would bring you a revenue as a service provider if you do that so do we need to put an extra award to that would be a first question no necessarily so that’s an interesting point um at the model I was thinking about is the small business innovative research funding in the United States so as you’re describing phase one is provided by you know grants to from the federal government that are smaller and then phase two is also funding from the US government that is um larger maybe two to three year project for them but but then phase three is the way it’s designed as I understand it is actually maybe matching funds you know but you have to have some kind of sponsor either another government agency or a commercial provider that’s going to sponsor the project but then maybe there’s some matching funds yeah the third phase can be driven by more commercial finance can Rick yeah I don’t know because I would personally be very interested in services from you know Africa or Asia coming on a board and then I don’t know whether they have a government to support or not well no I’m not saying that I’m just giving a model of three phases the support would come from singularity net but the question is on phase three if you still need to do more investing in order for the sales to be profitable that funding maybe is something that the company would be expected to get on their own but perhaps singular it would be worthwhile for singularity net to match I’m not sure but anyways phase three would I agree with you that phase three would be something that the company would be incentivized to find finance in for yeah of course we applaud any developer and then propose or whatever that will also be able to attract other kinds of incomes and and grants etc that’s only beneficial for the whole ecosystem so that’s that’s only good and if we can get have some role in that we will we will usually do that if that would need to be a financial role I’m not 100% sure now going back to phase one I was thinking if you’re talking about existing services then some proof of that service should already be available when you submit your proposal well I guess I was thinking of phase one as something like your smaller grants that you gave out in deep fund one and there it’s not necessarily enough funding to actually implement a service on the site it could be but maybe that’s not the priority the priority I guess is to invest in potential projects test them and I guess I say this because I can see a problem with rushing services onto the website and then them not being successful right so maybe before you rush a project to be hosted you want to get some proof that it’s going to be a value and then only once you’ve proven that it’s a value do you put more effort into making it into a product that would actually be able to generate sales and how would you go about proving that value you know Charles Hoskinson uses the phrase evidence-based business for instance right so you you’re kind of applying the principles of science to business problems so for instance you come up with some kind of hypotheses about the potential business value and then you in that phase one you carry out a set of development experience to test that hypothesis but if we’re talking about a service that is already existing how would you evaluate that wouldn’t it so I can still imagine two things either the service is already hosted somewhere on a private server or whatever but it works and then you can show it already in the proposal or it is available as source code or whatever but not active not not being able to be tested and then you would need to put it on some kind of server and yeah I can imagine there two steps that before putting it on our platform you first put it on a server without our platform in the in the middle that could be an intermediate step maybe I can make another point yeah in the round first round there was some discussion about how the hosting costs would be you know paid or whatever funded yeah and maybe we can also improve that for round two how would you like to improve that but at least make make clear that what is in and what is out of what singularity in that funds yeah so the answer to that in round one was the background of this thing is that in the future we want to the real ground reason is that we want to make sure that it’s not that a server’s not only developed but also actually onboarded and used on our platform so we try to incentivize that in our phase two proposal by saying that 25% of the costs would be related to API calls to other services thinking about our AID cell architecture which would enable services to collaborate and work together AID cell is in the works but not fully operational yet it will take a while still but we still wanted to have that 25% as an incentive and we were also bound to what we put forward on the proposal so we decided to incentivize people to host the service to actually use the service on our platform by enabling them to use the 25% for hosting and the way that we do that in practice right now it’s not only we pay out we are a little bit liberal there we not only pay out that 25% for hosting services of finalized finished services but you’re also allowed to use it during the R&D process so if you need already if you already have server costs during development we tend to be covering that as well by that 25% that does that answer your question or do you still have things that could be improved or clarified yeah and I know that’s a little bit hard thing to explain but yeah no no I think that’s that’s a very good thing and also we you could ask you know parties like FOTREC what are their experience with the first round and how how we could make it more clear for the second round yeah we could do that can Rick ask and the others what read so your input is also appreciated here um well I can give short feedback and Jan knows about this is that I think given the importance of actually hosting the algorithms on the website there needs to be a commitment of some kind of partnership with the singularity net team to help make that happen and so that’s that’s on our own projects kind of the biggest weakness right now that we are working with Jan and the and the S.D. team to resolve so that we can actually complete the project but a plan I guess maybe that gets to the point two of I think it’s good to have a smaller pool where there isn’t a commitment to host the algorithm yet you just want to flesh out the ideas and that can be more projects but then you go to phase two where there’s a larger amount of money to do the actual development but there’s also a commitment of a partnership with the SNET technical staff to get it host yeah all right all right let’s go back to the five we have five pools and um we’re already halfway the meeting and but we are also already progressing in the on the actual agenda here um first of all Peter let me say that we also have pulled out until now two surveys across the awarded teams in which we’re asking about their progress but the first um um server we also asked about their experience and what was good and bad the good bad and the ugly um and to be honest the feedback was extremely good I didn’t expect bad feedback but it was really good um and I think the thing that was best liked among the teams maybe is that we try to be really supportive instead of having a policing attitude these are the rules you have to do this otherwise you can’t do and prove etc we do that too to a certain extent but the main thing is with that we try to collaborate with the teams and try to support them and even if the sport may not always be up to the standards that you would like uh canaryk at least that is uh that is uh our attitude and of course as singularity net we are usually ambitious and we have limited teams so yeah we always have to make choices in what people can and cannot do um so our approach here is to try and make our documentation online as good as possible uh we had a couple of meetings where uh actually there is interaction with our uh developers to ask questions and to get feedback um but what we would what we would only do if really necessary is to say to the developing teams okay give it to us and we will do everything for you it would be better to hear where you have a bottleneck and then try to explain that so that we can also use that knowledge and improve our documentation for the next team we’ll come to that yeah exactly it can maybe one idea is can a video be made by the development team so that they on a video they show how you onboard how you uh you know connect to the uh web service uh how the API is called so then a video is maybe a little bit more uh clear than a manual yeah um yeah did did you actually go to the publisher portal because I there was another discussion recently also on discord um where the developer was mainly looking at the developer portal which makes sense uh whereas and whereas that’s a little bit more wide spun and more ideation etc whereas the publisher portal is more targeted to getting your service online on a step-by-step uh based so that would be my first step and I think there was a community member a while back like a year ago or something uh not sure if Peter is still uh available and knows this that actually did make some kind of video uh uh uh oh I think that was uh that was mac for a day I don’t know I don’t remember who it was but actually with some I the way I remember it was actually with some golden examples but also going through it really quickly and really fast so probably that can be uh improved upon but I’ll forward just a suggestion um and yeah actually uh thinking about this going back to the uh to the agenda of these five books so we talked about the regular pool having no maximum uh and minimum anymore and but uh the requirement there would be very clear either you part of the proposal should be the either the development of a service and onboarding it on the platform or utilizing a service on the platform very clear cut that would be one simple but clear condition then we have the existing services now we just were brainstorming a little bit about that and whether how we will do the disbursements um uh how how these things will turn out if they’re really that simple if we hope they will be or if it will be multi-faced I tend to not restrict that too much at this stage but because it’s the first experiment leave it also the milestones and the disbursements maybe to the uh proposals see how that will turn out and then in the next round we can guide that uh perhaps a little bit better then and that was where I’m going to we also have a marketing pool now last time in in in round one we said that there would be different kinds of proposals that would be eligible for funding as long as and and the main requirement was you have to support the platform in one way or another but even though it wasn’t a real problem at that stage I could foresee situations where it’s a little bit ambiguous is this a marketing proposal or is this um actually a development proposal let’s call it that where if I would say to a team listen but you’re not creating a surface and then they would probably uh suddenly flip and say oh but it’s a marketing proposal so I want to make it very clear in which box each proposal uh should land and also assign a proper amount to it so the two main pools would be existing surfaces and new surfaces or utilization of surfaces and then there are three smaller secondary pools and one of them would be a marketing pool the other would be uh ideation so also here canryk there would already be an option to start uh build on your solution without delivering an actual surface already so that is somehow already accounted for we have the part which is for tooling for deep funding itself or maybe for the platform platform here what I see is for instance a proposal around the reputation system or dashboard that we could use within deep funding but maybe in the future also for other platforms and teams and initiatives and marketing could be used to create a proposal that will create outreach so there’s a little bit of overlap here with the uh existing surfaces because they that might also stimulate outreach but and I’m going finally to my point here creating a video creating a video based tutorial might be a perfect example uh for a marketing proposal so I would I would love it if a community member or maybe a member that is already planning to put an existing surface on the portal would use that to create an instructive video or it doesn’t have to be a video it might also be in a different format that would be appropriate and then we could evaluate that as a marketing proposal according to marketing I should say as that I’m understanding better now as I look through the five different categories you’re planning I when you said you were taking the regular one and moving it from two categories to one I was sort of thinking of that as the whole thing but you actually have several different categories that fulfill different needs of the mission yeah five at the moment and and and a couple of those fit into what I was describing as you know the phase one is sort of the ideation category the regular one is like a phase two in my mind and then the services one where you already have an existing service that’s kind of like a phase three in terms it’s nice how that how you make that all fit together yeah if you could you could see it you could you could you could yeah so now I follow that or you know so we’re perfectly aligned can rig yes all right all right all right yes so I think the marketing pool itself I’m just for clarification because we also have a most other system running is marketing also related anyhow an internal way like what we do here internally and these people are coming to propose and helping them to coordinate and understand this or it’s a very well focused on marketing the services and platform itself I would say that that any pool including marketing would need to have the end goal of helping to grow our platform and our platform is too sided it’s publishers and consumers of AI service so internal if you would say I will create a tutorial that would help other ambassadors to make better texts or whatever video presentations then I would say that’s a little bit weak in respect of the goal of deep funding but if you would use a marketing pool to do an act to create an activity that might have overlap with the ambassador program so for instance create documentation which is clear and user friendly to onboard a new service I can imagine that could be a task that we would put out as part of the ambassador program but in this case I think that would also be perfectly suited for the marketing I think for the marketing pool most important will be that it is that the deliverable is somehow quantifiable so what are you delivering it’s not just spending money so I will use 10k to create stickers and put them on lamppost throughout the cities I don’t think that would be an appropriate way but if you say I will do this in this action or even create stickers throughout the city if you want but my disbursements are related to the amount of new people coming in through that initiative then it would be a good proposal so those are the things that we need to describe when a marketing proposal would be appropriate so in the in round one for instance there was one team that made a proposal to have an AI house or something they called it I think we’re somewhere in California have a house of people or people could meet and learn and teach about AI and you can look at that proposal from very different angles but let’s suppose that these people are really genuine in their way to create a community around AI well it might work but in such a situation we really need to have quantifiable global goals so when is this a success not by renting a house and inviting people that would not be a success it would need to have some measurable outcome based on which we could measure the success but I’m also I don’t want to to make it too tight that that pool I want to allow people to surprise me with things that I didn’t think about at first and maybe there’s a really out of the box way of maybe you can make TikTok movies I don’t know actually it could be a very good idea but then come up with a metric that we can measure on when we think it’s a success so people coming from TikTok to a certain landing page could be a metric for instance if we can measure that properly Peter had to go okay so yeah that is so that’s a good point on marketing so marketing would also be a lower category in terms of awards I wouldn’t like to spend so there was also a risk at the first round what if 80% of the proposals would be marketing would be happy then and how would we go about that so I think we mitigate that by having that in a separate pool but on the other hand I would really really love if non AI developer community members would find some way to become engaged with the platform and with deep funding and find ways to help support and grow our platform but if you have any specific ideas to let them yeah I was the reason why I asked this was just to get the understanding of scope for who we were listening and I’m thinking about like from cuteness perspective there is a lot of people who found that helping other proposals is much easier perhaps actually to start off like making your project is a bit more complicated but you’ve seen a comrade doing oh that’s a great idea how can I help you oh you need slight text oh yeah I can draw I have some Photoshop and like having services which just help other people who are using either deep fund platform one day I just wanted to prepare like okay is how much is ambassador program was in collect in general like related to that just to make sure that somebody who is has an ii mindset and wants to market the AI but it doesn’t is not really sculpt on the on the platform itself is that the value thing yes supports as long as it supports the growth of the platform so if you manage to attract so I can imagine that you will create an educational website or blog or whatever around the platform which is not directly immediately related to the platform actually actually and this is a very clear example of overlap between ambassador program and this deep funding thing I can imagine that if you say I will create a blog and I will write 10 articles on the 10 most interesting services that are currently on the platform or I’ll make a video about it or whatever that could be I mean that’s already kind of pontifiable if you say I will write 10 articles and maybe we should put some metric there that it will at least have a certain amount of views for instance or likes or whatever but that could be very valuable for the platform yeah and something we are missing and that we don’t get around to in our day to day business there are there are many things like that that we would like to do but we don’t we we simply have to make choices we are already doing a lot with the amount of people that we have I can also if I would have the time if I would be a community member right now what I would do actually I made a proposal like that two years back when I was a community member is to make kind of animated infographic that explains maybe not necessarily to developers that want to onboard the system but to the general public what the platform is what it is today what we can expect in the next one or two years and how it will eventually turn out to be and what the the place of AI diesel and an open-cork hyperon is on the platform that could also be really useful material so it would also be applicable I think the the best thing for me would be if somebody a community member would say I will have this and this and this initiative which will bring hundreds developers to the platform there would be my dream marketing initiative so maybe somebody who’s well-known in a community or maybe somebody who wants to go through GitHub and filter out interesting surfaces and then have a one-on-one relationship with these people and try to motivate them to come onboard actually that’s a overlap with the existing surfaces it could yeah yeah we might need consider offering referral code options because right now on the quantifying things side of life how do we know where somebody comes from yeah I have thought about that also some time ago and how we can make that work a good referral scheme usually somebody goes to the platform or to any site for that matter in marketing is in doing that because of one trigger usually people get five or 10 triggers and then they make a move and the question would be which one is the determining trigger there so so suppose that somebody would already have visited our website five times let’s let’s make an extreme situation we have had three proposals in would have joined all these meetings and then I would give him my code would I then get awarded for referring that person there are there a lot of tricky tricky things the way cutter is does it but you know sorry the project cutter is the each proposal has a section who referred to you and when the proposal gets funded then they so you already get the information regardless if it gets funded or not and you already get some insight but then if it gets funded then the person gets contacted and if there is no overlap on this they actually already know each other they’re working on the same proposal and the conflict of interest are there then if the referees add to the like a rebar code then the rebar code is split between all the referers in that funding on yeah yeah so that I thought about similar mechanism for the existing surfaces where the but then in I would would expect most of the time the submitter would be the one and then it would be actually reversed where the submitter would mention the developer but the but I wonder how and catalyst how will they determine that somebody is not part of the team because you don’t know which part of the team well you have to put an email address there and I guess the only check is based on IP addresses and based on email address you will see what other proposals if any your part of what are even a part of ideas can and if you’re not then yeah so it’s a very low threshold thing and it can easily be gained if you want and maybe it’s also not a big problem if it would could get gained that way actually I thought about a similar thing similar mechanism with concerning ideation so in an ideal world I would see that a lot of people bring on ideas for deep funding services or for services on the platform and then if a developer or a developing team would adopt such an idea they could reference the person who created the idea in the first place which wouldn’t diminish their own returns but it would give some extra to the person that put the idea forward but I was thinking about the same thing so if I were a proposal yeah I would probably put my own name there and it’s a hassle to try and filter that out some way but but it’s still something on my mind but maybe this whole ideation pool is a different way of attacking the same problem so if I’m not a developer but I have a good idea I could submit it to the ideation pool and then by the visibility of that pool might help me to attract a development team around that idea and then bring it to the next stage and then be or be not be involved in the next stage of it that is interesting yeah all right all right one thing that we didn’t discuss today yet which was on the agenda is the conditions on which we would launch round two since we’re now only left with three people including me I think we should skip that for now and maybe come back to that next time next meeting is and Wednesday 13th of November like skipping next week or 23 no no I think right now for now we’re doing it on a weekly basis and last week weekly basis but most of them aren’t here right now but that’s for different reasons so I would suggest to have the next call a week from now so 23rd okay because yeah depends who will be back but again I know that all of them to get their birthday and they get back on 22nd but perhaps they already okay okay yeah and then the question is if they are just back from the summit how much appetite do they have on jumping on a call at this time of day exactly why not the person is going to join back me so and don’t know when he easy kind of stay here for a day and he can yeah all of that yeah just to consider like people are now traveling and they cause the exhaustion yeah yeah on the other hand if we do it in two weeks then potentially a date for a new round is really close and theoretically we could already have started in your round by then so yeah I think I’ll keep the next date open and if there’s just a few people then there’s just a few people and then we’ll have a discussion with a few people like actually also today and my experience is that conversations with a few people sometimes are also it’s not always the amount of people that determine how valuable our conversation is. Today was also a lesson learned also on the computer within me was in the session where I was mentioning that the one in the meeting you also want to capture who are the people what made it success so when you look at good process you always notice the failure is not the successes and when you notice successes you don’t usually know what caused the success is the person was the model or the precipitation what was that so if you have less people you have better insight what made it the great position yeah yeah well determining what your part in the success or a failure is is really hard yeah I think many people have a good understanding what their own contribution to a success is and a much different understanding of what their contribution to a failure is and mirror that to the outside world but that’s a whole different psychological topic I would suggest for now that we just end this part of the meeting we’ll keep open a spot for next week I’ll try to proceed with describing the conditions for the different pools and maybe some concrete things will come out of that there’s a disclaimer there there’s a lot of other stuff going on as always that’s the same disclaimer I can give always so it’s always a bit tricky how much time I will actually have to to complete that but having said that that would be so I think the the goal next week could be similar the agenda could actually be similar to the one that we had today but maybe zooming in on some specific areas all right if you agree then I will stop recording so everybody should be watching this thanks for watching I hope it brought you some inspiration if you have ideas if you have suggestions feel free to bring them forward even if you don’t want to join a meeting like this you can still put forward your ideas and suggestion on our social media channel so feel absolutely free to do that and thanks for being here and thanks for what you need this card if you don’t know what this card and we also have telegram so we have specific group in telegram dedicated to deep funding but this card is even better is preferred environment but also I will answer everything on telegram as well to prefer that jump thanks for that Tivo all right thanks for watching thanks for being here and hopefully we’ll see you next week.