# Workshop #4

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.&#x20;

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.

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWqTuSkR_jg>" %}

\\

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”
