TCRs to Curate Specialized Funding Proposals
“We are going to create nano chatbots with artificial intelligence in a genomic blockchain with DNA inserted in their bodies to fight Molecules type B with Negative Gamma all while doing deep learning”
I know that this is a bit too much but it was not far away from what we have seen last year in terms of spectacular claims to get funds through ICOs. The sad thing is that sometimes….most often than not, worked for the people behind those scams.
So what´s left for the investor ? Check the team ? advisors ? read the whitepaper ? c´mon…
The problem this kind of claims brings, is the amount of bullshit that contaminates the scene and is not letting the right projects to reach visibility and get proper funding, so the average investor is somewhat blind in terms of specialized investment. That is why I think TCRs can mitigate a bit (not entirely solve) the above described problem.
Past week, with the Open Science Network team, we did a bootcamp in Mendoza, Argentina, and we been discusing a lot TCRs, and I came up with a model that could be useful….
(I´m not the best infographic dude...)
Let me explain it step by step.
First of all, we will have a “initial TCR Token offering” where only “OSN acredited researchers are able to participate”, I know I know…this could be a point of conflict, centralization, etc… but at least initially we need to know who the researchers are (background), that is why I like A LOT Fabian Vogelsteller ERC 725 proposal, because we can add Researchgate or ORCID ids to form a complete background of these acredited researchers and make sure that they know about the scientific subject for what they are selecting projects. Later, as the model grows stronger, we can implement a timeframed TCR List of Best Researchers for each science field to work on projects selection or even better a LTCR (Layered Token Curated Registries), a concept developed by Trent McConaghy, that I think is one of the best contributions around TCRs lately.
Going back to the explanation, This initial TCR token offering needs to have a clear prospect in regards of what the TCR list is going to be about, for example.
“TCR to list Companies that are developing Research in Diabetes, more precisely in the field of Diabetes Type 2 , ….”
(disclaimer: Precise definition is utterly important)
So lets say a Researcher wants to participate in the TCR, from now on we will call it “Delegated Selector”, for this, he/she needs to send a TBD amount of crypto-money (ETH for example) to a pool called “initial TCR Token Pool” and he/she gets the TCR Token. The ETH pooled in this TCR Token offering is not just a stake or “Participation ticket” for the “Delegated Selector”, but also an investment pool since all the ETH on it, will be later transfer to the ICO smart contract for what the “Delegated selectors” a.k.a. Acredited Researchers, are choosing companies/projects in the list, thus their selection needs to be good for them too (Kinda “skin in the game” )
This initial stake for the TCR token, at a first glance should be equal for every Selector since they are going to use the tokens in form of “Token allocation” to select the best projects, in this way all researchers (Delegated Selectors) will have the same voting power.
Once the Initial TCR token offering is finished, second phase starts, so companies/projects that want to apply to be part of the TCR List needs to buy a participation token sending the TBD amount of crypto to the “Participation Token Pool”, in this way and contrary to common TCRs, they are at that very moment part of the list, there is no challenge or anything similar, every company that buys the “participation ticket” is listed and contributing to the Participation Token Pool, then once the voting phase of the delegated selectors is over then “winners” will be defined. Another option is to develop a common TCR for the project registration, but I thought that as an evolution of this first approach.
Companies/projects that buy the Participation Token need to be sure that this list is for them, carefully analizing the requirements and ICO prospect. Once the “Participation Token Offering” is finished, Delegated Selectors vote for, lets say 3 best projects of the list to receive the funds of the ICO. The vote take place distributing their “Initial TCR Token” between the entrees, and the winners are the first 3 projects that have accumulated more tokens during voting phase. I said 3, but it can be discussed if the number of winners could be in function of total companies listed.
Now remember that we have 2 pools, …”initial TCR Token pool” and “Participation Ticket Pool” , Delegated Selectors will invest in the ICO for what they are selecting projects with these funds, thus getting more tokens than the average ICO investor, and being those extra tokens the payment for their selection. They will get the ICO token exchanging their “Initial TCR Token” with some defined vesting time to not “dump” the tokens as they probably are going to be major holders.
We can also work on different forms to grant the money, one that I like a lot is to use the EIP948 , a subscription model, where Winner projects needs to update their work development in order to not get their subscription cancelled. Also we can split the total funds in a 20–60–20 model, giving 20% as a grant at the beginning, 60% as subscription, and 20% as a bounty at the end.
It needs to be further discussed what happens with discoveries that are result of funded investigations, maybe a group of ERC721 with ID of contributors that later can be used as a revenue sharing wallet IDs. This is a very important point, because if the research does not have a marketable output, the ICO would act as a donation to the research teams, a carefully selected donation nonetheless.
Again, it needs work, but I think that can be a good model for investors that want to participate funding specialized research and science projects, and Researchers have an incentive to select the best projects using their knowledge.
Feel free to ping me and discuss this model joining our Open Science Network telegram group or twit me at @mariandipietra
Best,
