AdaQuad - Crowdfunding Platform | Lido Nation 日本語

over budget

AdaQuad - Crowdfunding Platform

$24,900.00 _Requested

View on ideascale

Community Review Results (4 reviewers)

Addresses Challenge

Feasibility

Auditability

ソリューション

Cardano CatalystおよびCardanoエコシステムにおける他のDOAのための投票および資金調達方法を設計する。

Problem:

ウォレットの大きさがかなり異なる場合でも、議決権のバランスがとれるような、迅速な集団意思決定のための資金調達方法を開発するにはどうしたらよいでしょうか。

Yes Votes:

₳ 36,391,780

No Votes:

₳ 10,119,559

Votes Cast:

228

チーム

Detailed Plan

Brief Description

We aim to design a rapid funding platform (AdaQuad) for Cardano Catalyst and other DOAs in the Cardano ecosystem.

Since Rapid Funding will necessarily involve smaller segments of the Cardano Community than the current quarterly voting system, accountability and transparency is a crucial problem to solve. A solution to this problem is to require public donations in the proposed projects.

<u>AdaQuad</u> works as a crowdfunding site that seeks to support innovative projects on Cardano Environment.

Objective

To study and design a swift Quadratic Funding Platform (AdaQuad) for the Catalyst Community that could provide an alternative treasury management system that can be rapid, open-ended, asynchronous, and focused.

Project Plan and Outcomes

AdaQuad will be a 6-month project with 3 2-month phases to prototype the crowdfunding capability. Proposals will be submitted for F7 and F8 to support testing and launch of AdaQuad.

Phase 1: Month 1 & 2

- Investigate and develop a balanced and diversified funding protocol/platform. In this platform, each sponsor (AdaQuater) can donate (fund) his preferred proposals.

Phase 2: Month 3 & 4

- The platform will be designed to promote funding and coordination of future Cardano Community creative works: products, solutions and open technologies. Proposals would be funded employing the Quadratic Funding method that provides a balanced and diversified voting influence. Donations will be matched by the Cardano Rapid-Funding Treasury using the Quadratic Funding mechanism.

Phase 3: Month 5 & 6

- Implement a Quadratic Funding mechanics to ensure that dominant cliques and/or individuals do not gain oligarchic decision-making control in AdaQuad Rapid Funding Platform. In this Quadratic Funding method, the Cost of Voting (CV) is quadratic on the number of votes (NV): CV = NV*NV.

Staffing & Budget

Principal Scientist - Design of Funding Mechanism, $6000

Systems Engineering & Management - Design & Manage Project Goals, $6000

Web Developer - Development of Website, $4000

Plutus Developer - Design of Smart Contract Implementation, $5000

Atala Prism Designer - Mechanism for Proof of Identity, $3000

Computing Supplies - $900

Total: $ 24900

References

Square-Root Voting

Werner Kirsch, On Penrose's Square-Root Law and Beyond, in Power, Voting, and Voting Power: 30 Years After, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.

K. Życzkowski and W. Słomczyński, "Square Root Voting System, Optimal Threshold and π," in Power, Voting, and Voting Power: 30 Years After, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 573–592.

W. Kirsch and J. Langner, "The Fate of the Square Root Law for Correlated Voting," Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 147–158.

Considers the effect of both Strong Opinions or equivalently a common societal belief system and the influence of neighbors as modeled by spin dynamics.

L. S. Penrose, "The Elementary Statistics of Majority Voting," J. R. Stat. Soc., vol. 109, no. 1, p. 53, 1946.

W. Slomczynski and K. Zyczkowski, "Penrose voting system and optimal quota," Oct. 2006.

Quadratic Voting

Eric A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl. "Quadratic Voting as Efficient Corporate Governance", Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics, University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound, 2013.

Steven P. Lalley and Glen Weyl. "Quadratic Voting: How Mechanism Design Can Radicalize Democracy", Aea Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 108, 2018.

Eric Posner and E. Glen Weyl. "Quadratic Voting and the Public Good: Introduction", 172 Public Choice 1, 2017.

Vitalik Buterin, Zoë Hitzig and E. Glen Weyl. "Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds", Arxiv preprint, 2020.

M. J. Holler and H. Nurmi, Eds., "Power, Voting, and Voting Power: 30 Years After." Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.

Governance Theory

André L. M. Vilela and H. Eugene Stanley. "Effect of Strong Opinions on the Dynamics of the Majority-Vote Model", Scientific Reports, Nature, 2018.

In this work, we investigate how the presence of individuals with strong voting opinions affects a network of social interactions based on the majority-vote model. We find that such a weighted voting mechanism weakens the consensus of the network, imposing a fragile social-ordered regime, where opposing voting states dominate.

André L. M. Vilela; Chao Wang; Kenric P. Nelson; H. Eugene Stanley. "Majority-vote model for financial markets", Physica A - Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, 2018.

Bernardo J. Zubillaga, André L. M. Vilela, Chao Wang, Kenric P. Nelson, H. Eugene Stanley. "A Three-state Opinion Formation Model for Financial Markets", Physica A - Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, 2021.

M. J. Holler and H. Nurmi, Eds., Power, Voting, and Voting Power: 30 Years After. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.

A. Laruelle and F. Valenciano, "Voting and Power," in Power, Voting, and Voting Power: 30 Years After, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 137–149.

コミュニティ・アドバイザー・レビュー (4)

Addresses Challenge

2.8 / 5

4 レビュー

拡大崩壊

Does the proposal effectively addresses the challenge?

This proposal is about to study and design a funding platform based on a quadratic voting mechanism. This team has already provided a fantastic analysis and study on voting diversity and influence on past Funds with interesting conclusions regarding the benefit of quadratic voting. In this proposal they are moving one step forward with a platform that can take advantage of those discoveries. Even though they claim that the platform will be designed for a rapid funding, it is not clear nor explained in detail what are the capabilities of the platform that would make the funding faster than Catalyst. I see this proposal more related to the quadratic voting method, something that I'd love to see implemented, and it might fit better in a different Challenge.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessment Quality Assurance is an offered role to veteran in the Cardano Project Catalyst Community. The purpose is to review PA assessments of proposals, providing a second layer of Quality Assurance.

Assessor ID: z_assessor_554
Total QA Ratings: 20
QA Rating Outcome

While intellectually impressive, this proposal does not meet the detail or intent of the Brief;"Increasing the speed of funding is critically important to allow important projects to move rapidly from volunteers to paid professionals. While volunteerism is strong in our community (and a strength), the ability to pay people for their time will accelerate and dramatically improve the time and energy people will be able to devote to Catalyst." This proposal inverts the direction of development, asking people to pay to devote time and vote to the funding system.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_701
Total QA Ratings: 19
QA Rating Outcome

This proposal aims at creating a new voting and funding method based on the quadratic voting theory. The proposing team mentioned that this is important to create a rapid funding mechanism, but it does not elaborates on how that would be achieved exactly. The idea presented in this proposal is a consequence of the mentioned proposal, that was funded previously and showed how many 'whales' are participating on Catalyst and how much their vote represent overall. So, this is a proposal to decrease their influence and increase the influence of holder with less amount of ADA. Although I believe this concept and proposal are important, I see this submission under the rapid funding mechanism as not appropriate, since the goals of the challenge are different from those presented in the proposal. It also doesn't elaborate much on how the impact of this project could be measured. If not funded and resubmitted, the proposer could, for example, compare the outcomes of a voting process using the current format, and the one suggested in this proposal, and compare how much more distributed the decision process is.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_31
Total QA Ratings: 19
QA Rating Outcome

They address the problem of lacking a quick collective decision-making funding mechanism. They will ad value to the Cardano ecosystem by quickly getting projects funded that will build on Cardano. The don't really have key metrics to measure against the challenge except for the shorter periods of time the fund will take. The project will be able to scale as they are using a voting system that is fairer than most systems out there.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_140
Total QA Ratings: 22
QA Rating Outcome

Feasibility

3.8 / 5

4 レビュー

拡大崩壊

Given experience and plan presented is likely that this proposal will be implemented successfully

The team is composed by members of the community that have arealde delivered projects with outstanding results. This reason per se gives us great confidence in them. Additionally, they provided a detailed plan divided in 3 phases, two-month each, with an explanation on activities and expected results. The budget is based on the staff needed and was provided with a breakdown by human resource with an overall cost (not hourly rates provided). They provide many references to square-root and quadratic voting, and governance theory, but they did not provide a risk assessment for the implementation.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_554
Total QA Ratings: 20
QA Rating Outcome

While intellectually formidable, the team appears to have the background necessary for successful implementation. The plan is sound and achievable.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_701
Total QA Ratings: 19
QA Rating Outcome

The team behind this project is responsible for a previous analysis regarding the concentration of voting power in the hands of only a few 'whales', and they already delivered the report that was due from that proposal. Based on that, I believe the team is able to also deliver the research side of the current proposal, even though their names and background were not presented or further referenced here. But the proposal also mentioned some Plutus, AtalaPRISM and Web developers that they don't reference who they are, if they were already hired or in any way contacted. This information should be included here along with all other team member's info to increase the proposal feasbility score. The budget is well described, even though it seems a big short to what is proposed and the time frame, but based on the team's experience I believe it's sufficient. The roadmap is well explained and seems to be adequate to what's being proposed, although more details would also benefit the understanding of the implementation plan.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_31
Total QA Ratings: 19
QA Rating Outcome

The relevant experience and team has been provided in the budget, but no proof of their existence is provided. It will boost voter confidence if you ad links to prove your team's existence. The budget seems reasonable and is broken down into the specific roles responsible for building the project and computing supplies. The project will be a 6 month experiment to prototype the crowdfunding capability. Which seems doable, taking into account that each fund will happen every 2 months. They have gone into great detail explaining how the voting will work, but not so much on the platform they are building. No technical information as to what languages they use to build the different parts of the platform. Will there even be a platform, how can voting happen without a platform? Providing more info on how and what you are building will eliminate questions like these and boost voter confidence. No risks and challenges have been considered. You need to show the reader that you are aware and prepared for future risks. Doing so will boost trust in your project.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_140
Total QA Ratings: 22
QA Rating Outcome

Auditability

3.8 / 5

4 レビュー

拡大崩壊

Does the proposal provides sufficient information to assess and audit progress and completion?

They provided a roadmap with milestones, but no KPIs. Providing KPIs enables the community to track the performance and progress of your project. Without KPIs voters will be hesitant in your projects abilities to succeed. They address the problem of lacking a fair quick funding mechanism to fund projects. They solve this by a researched voting method that is fair and able to scale successfully.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_140
Total QA Ratings: 22
QA Rating Outcome

The team provided a timeline of activities and expected results, however they did not include KPIs and metrics to track the project and alignment with the Challenge. In overall, the proposal misses in more detail on how to measure success that would have been also useful to better understand the matching with the Challenge goal.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_554
Total QA Ratings: 20
QA Rating Outcome

Success is described, KPIs, milestones, action plans, roadmap are aligned, specific, measurable, publically auditable, and time fenced, therefore the information is sufficient to audit success and progress towards it.

The proposal presents a clear roadmap with bi-monthly milestones. This is not ideal for auditability since proposers need to report progress every month, so this might need to be split up in smaller steps if it gets funded. Also, the proposal could include some KPIs to keep track of the current progress of development. Therefore, a more detailed roadmap and KPIs should be included in the future round to increase the auditability of this proposal, if it doesn't get funded now.

Assessment Quality Assurance

Assessor ID: z_assessor_31
Total QA Ratings: 19
QA Rating Outcome

Comments

No comments yet…