An important component of the AI Commons is that the decision on projects that are funded is decentralized, rather than centralized, across the community. However, with great power comes great responsiblity. As much as possible, we want to ensure that the community takes the time to become familiar with proposals, and consider the types of AI projects that they would like to see funded. While we don't want to re-create the well-known issues of the academic peer review system, we do want to create a culture of community review. We plan to experiment with this and iterate based on feedback. As a first step, we will be rewarding individuals who write a review on at least one project proposal on the forum with a Reviewer Reputation Badge (in the form of an NFT). This Badge will count towards one extra vote during the voting period.
A review comment should be fairly short form e.g. two to three points, and can include considerations such as:
- What do you like about the approach?
- What could be improved in the approach?
- What are some considerations or risks that the project might not have considered?
- What is an additional deliverable that is both achievable and beneficial?
- What are some useful tools or other resources that might help the project to succeed?
- Are you familiar with any prior work on the subject of the project that the team might not have come across?
- What are some other areas where the outputs of the project might be applicable?
- Do you know any other projects that might be suitable for potential collaborations?
We plan to add to this list of questions as we study future reviews.
Comments such as "Love the proposal" are still welcome, but won't be considered for Reviewer Badges.
We're very grateful to Ocean Protocol Foundation for sponsoring Algovera Grants.