Workshop #4

February 23, 2024

In this workshop we will bring together community members from the DeepFunding ecosystem to explore what we can learn from each other and apply for a Reputation System at Deep Funding.

The Workshop is part of the funded proposal in DeepFunding Round 3 which executes a series of workshops to define a recommendation document on a DeepFunding Reputation system.

Meeting Hosts Dominik Tilman & Felix Weber

Participants: Vani Guillermo Wims Duke Celiwe

Meeting notes of discussion highlights and perspectives/opinions on specific topics:

Reputation System Design Principles

• Interoperability, so keeping in mind that reputation is highly dependent on its context.

• Different layers of reputation

• Context can be bound to environments or time

• Contributors decide on which data they want to subscribe to the reputation system

• The reputation system just verifies subscribed contributions

• Individual contributions can be tagged to specific groups

• Tasks on group tags generate group reputation

• Should not make value judgements (good or bad statements on contributions)

• Recognise wide range of skills

• Reputation changes quickly, check the Catalyst Proposal reviewer evolution from the most dominant group to a ghost with non impact over a short time, degradation of reputation

Governance and Community Building

• Should promote decentralisation

• To build a strong builders community, this will help to build decentralised beneficial AGI

• Reward people to work together

• Reputation system should support organic long term growth

• Should sustain long term contributors

• Must be always open to newcomers, constant focus on new member adaption

• Avoid hierarchy, there are a lot of risks in emerging hierarchies

• Can it be a flat structure vs should it be a flat structure

• Experimenting if it can be a flat structure (horizontal hierarchy)

• Should focus on individual experiences in their ecosystems

• Should promote equal opportunities

• Improve and support effective treasury spending decisions, ensuring high quality votes/decisions

Contributions and Motivation

• Bad reputation, bad actors should not be seen as banned forever for bad actions

• What if bad reputation follows a contributor and Decreasing reputation if contributions stop

• Tho system is always open to restart

• AI as copilot to support contributors in their actions, focus on improving contributor quality where it matters the most.

• Don't be afraid of failures, when we mess up things we see what needs to be done better

• Should respect efforts

• Reputation helps people staying motivated

• To have predictable outcomes from a user perspective, clear action lines, if i do this > that happens

• Rank or level system so people are motivated to climb up

• Incentivise valuable contributions at DeepFunding community operations (DeepFunding Circles)

• Intrinsic motivations can be built from reputation

Concerns and Challenges

• Qualifications (titles, diplomas etc) and their relation to reputation, should there be some basic requirements to engage

• Not a system where past matters most

• How can we build confidence in the validations of a contribution

• • not expecting too much from the reputation system, look on it from an objective perspective as simply data, let's not make too much value judgements

• What are the entry barriers for newcomers to a reputation system?

• To address important questions in the right environment

• Thinking about what it should not be! Too many not completed projects funded through proposals

Specific Examples and References

• Got funded for proposal and delivered

• Got funded for proposal and did not deliver

• Didn't get Funded but still delivered

• Polkadot has the fellowship program where it takes 17 years to achieve the highest rank

• Reputation system sets a social order, good example is a family

• Can help to develop “universal income”