Arslan Tarq

Project Owner

Testing for notifications

Project for Round 4 - Beta
Funding Awarded $75,000 USD
Funding Pools New projects
Milestones 0 / 2 Completed

Status

Overall Status
⏳ Contract Pending
Funding Transfered
$0_USD
Max Funding Amount
$75,000_USD

Funding Schedule

View Milestones

Milestone Release 1	$18,750 USD	Pending	TBD
Milestone Release 2	$56,250 USD	Pending	TBD

Overview

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Proposal Description

How Our Project Will Contribute To The Growth Of The Decentralized AI Platform

AI services (New or Existing)

Company Name (if applicable)

SNet

The core problem we are aiming to solve

Our specific solution to this problem

Project details

Needed resources

Open Source Licensing

GNU GPL - GNU General Public License

Links and references

Additional videos

Revenue Sharing Model

API Calls

API Description:

API Revenue Service

120

API Revenue Percentage

API Revenue Year

2024

Activity Summary

Milestones

2

Total

Discussion

4

Total Comments

Reviews

2

Total Posted

Project Team

0

Total People

Group Expert Rating (Final)

Overall

5.0

Feasibility 5.0
Desirabilty 4.0
Usefulness 5.0

New reviews and ratings are disabled for Awarded Projects

Overall Community

5

from 2 reviews

5

1
4

0
3

0
2

0
1

0

Feasibility

3

from 2 reviews

Viability

5

from 2 reviews

Desirabilty

3

from 2 reviews

Usefulness

5

from 2 reviews

Sort by

2 ratings

Expert Review 1
Overall

5.0
- Feasibility 3.0
- Desirabilty 3.0
- Usefulness 5.0
ryrtyrt rty

tryrt htrrty rtertwewerew

Posting publicaly as

edit profile

Overall

Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0
Confidence in a successful outcome considering team, time, and budget Viability

0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

Expert Review

Overall

Confidence level that the project is possible at all Feasibility

0
Confidence in a successful outcome considering team, time, and budget Viability

0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competition Desirabilty

0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow? Usefulness

0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

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.

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.

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

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.

Total Milestones
2
Total Budget
$75,000_USD
Last Updated
13 Nov 2024

Milestone 1 - API Calls & Hostings

Status

😐 Not Started

Description

This milestone represents the required reservation of 25% of your total requested budget for API calls or hosting costs. Because it is required we have prefilled it for you and it cannot be removed or adapted.

Deliverables

You can use this amount for payment of API calls on our platform. Use it to call other services or use it as a marketing instrument to have other parties try out your service. Alternatively you can use it to pay for hosting and computing costs.

Budget

$18,750 USD

Link URL

Milestone 2 - Snet

Status

😐 Not Started

Description

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Deliverables

Budget

$56,250 USD

Link URL

Join the Discussion (4)

Sort by

4 Comments

0

arslantariq786
Project Owner Mar 11, 2024 | 6:57 AM

Edit Comment

<p>Hi humayun i am testingggg this comment notificaton please reply</p> <p> </p>

Hi humayun i am testingggg this comment notificaton please reply
- 0
  
  Humayun S
  Mar 11, 2024 | 6:59 AM
  
  replying to you
0

Humayun S
Mar 11, 2024 | 6:56 AM

test comment
- 0
  
  arslantariq786
  Project Owner Mar 11, 2024 | 6:58 AM
  
  hi ok i got notification

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

Group Expert Rating (Final)

Overall

5.0

Feasibility 5.0
Desirabilty 4.0
Usefulness 5.0

New reviews and ratings are disabled for Awarded Projects

Expert Review 1
Overall

5.0
- Feasibility 3.0
- Desirabilty 3.0
- Usefulness 5.0
ryrtyrt rty

tryrt htrrty rtertwewerew

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow?Usefulness

0.0
Confidence level that the project is possible at allFeasibility

0.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competitionDesirabilty

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

5.0
To what extent will the project help the AI platform grow?Usefulness

5.0
Confidence level that the project is possible at allFeasibility

5.0
Market fit - Balancing needs and benefits against competitionDesirabilty

4.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.