Role interaction studies in Cardano

[GENERAL] Summarize your solution to the problem.

We propose to carry out a full-fledged research work describing how the distribution of the roles of platform participants and the connections between them affect the work of funds.

[GENERAL] Summarize your relevant experience.

Our team includes ontologists and auditors of non-profit organizations, as well as a person with experience in developing complex role models within game development.

[IMPACT] Please describe your proposed solution.

We propose to conduct a large-scale study with the modeling of platform actors and their relationships.

We are going to describe the existing and possible roles on Cardano platform, visualise them, simulate them in AnyLogic (ABM), determine the moments when the best and worst decisions are made, how biases can be curtailed. Based on this, we will build a more balanced model of the Cardano ecosystem, which does not allow to ignore the subjects of voting.

There are many solutions, our task is simply to understand which of them are good, and which only seem to be so. DeReps can be trained, unscrupulous can be filtered out. It is possible to build a system where evaluators can gain credibility, from the ability to vote only for themselves, to the ability to send thousands of other people's votes, but only when they have already proven their integrity.

We oppose temporary and easily bypassed solutions.

[IMPACT] Please describe how your proposed solution will address the Challenge that you have submitted it in.

As stated in the challenge, Cardano has a big problem with the correctness of the evaluation of proposals.

In systems that depend on complex community behavior, there are big problems, for example, with the assessment of the competence of auditors and fraud with votes.

For example, in academic science, the standard indicator of a scientist's competence is the number of citations. However, it is not uncommon for a scientist to self-reference to increase their citation rate, or when negative references by critics to a particular article still give the scientist a reputation boost.

To avoid this, we need a rigorous model that describes the roles offered by the system, exploring the possibilities for cheating with them. We need to consider alternative options, such as being able to swap auditors and proposers on a regular basis, giving them commensurate resources.

[IMPACT] What are the main risks that could prevent you from delivering the project successfully and please explain how you will mitigate each risk?

We are concerned about the complexity in managing both large-scale research and in managing the execution of their intended development path.

The obvious thing is that not every study of a problem gives a complete picture of the path to its solution. Perhaps, however, understanding the target system will allow the Cardano community to see better voting options.

At least some of our team are worried that such an unflattering review of the current voting system in Cardano will cause a backlash among those in charge. If that's the case, we'd love it if our critique encourages you to take a fresh look at the new voting features for this platform.

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed plan, including timeline and key milestones for delivering your proposal.

• create an extended model of the roles and relationships of Cardano actors
• using the Eliott Jaques model (MAH, auditors, etc.) as a basis to create visualizations, determine the basic visual grammar (to borrow from systems engineering and business architecture)
• create simulations in AnyLogic

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed budget breakdown.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vIgYfm_t3noHGz25kCtiwspD5gIJSPNKqA2k-TOMsI8/edit#gid=0

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide details of the people who will work on the project.

Danila Medvedev

We're going to bring in outside experts - both our fellow innovation experts and Cardano enthusiasts.

[FEASIBILITY] If you are funded, will you return to Catalyst in a later round for further funding? Please explain why / why not.

This project will be completed and will not need further funding.

However if we are successful with this project, we will discuss within the team and with the Cardano community how the Project Catalyst system should evolve. We hope that we will be able to design new research projects and new interventions that will improve the effectiveness of Catalyst as innovation funding (and innovation management) mechanism. Those new project may be eventuall submitted to Catalyst for funding.

[FEASIBILITY] Are you or any member of your team working on any other proposals in this Fund9?

[FEASIBILITY] Are you or your team working on any other proposals from previous Funds?

[AUDITABILITY] Please describe what you will measure to track your project's progress, and how will you measure these?

We suspect that there may be problems measuring the success of a study, precisely because it is research work.

We don't really understand the requested KPI as it can be bypassed relatively easily and we see this as one of the issues we need to address.

We would like to illustrate the problem of assessing progress in complex systems with the text of this challenge itself.

Cardano Catalyst writes on his website regarding the quest "About F9: dRep improvement and onboarding":

"How does success look like?

After one year

(1) 200+ deReps from 100+ countries have participated.

(2) 50%+ of the voters are voting “carefully”"

We can easily show how these indicators are achieved without any benefit to the community.

The first is achievable with $1,000: all you have to do is promise teenagers from 100 different countries $10 each to register as DeReps and vote for whatever you tell them to. Even if someone is going to solve this problem honestly, it is obvious that having 200 different dereps from 100 countries does not guarantee even distribution and decentralization. We can ensure the participation of 99 people from different countries around the world, but the votes of 101 from one country will still outweigh.

The second condition is easy to eliminate with the help of arithmetic: let the platform set, in addition to adequate voting options, something like options with the names "This is a test of attentiveness, do not click here" and take away the ability to vote from a person who clicks on these options with the same frequency as to the rest.

These are not the only but obvious ways to twist the agenda.

If you truly evaluate the viability of proposed solutions by whether they achieve these metrics, you will give life to many campaigns that are completely useless to the Cardano ecosystem.

Numerical indicators are not enough. We need rules - especially with the introduction of the ability to delegate votes. A blogger with millions of followers and relatable statements can get the resources of thousands of people delegating a decision to him, and then spend it on his own pocket project. Same can be said about politicians and lobbyists. It is not yet clear to us whether you have built into the system ways to protect against corruption of this kind.

In this connection, let me ask: who evaluated this challenge itself? :)

[AUDITABILITY] What does success for this project look like?

We will consider the balanced and actively growing Cardano Catalyst system as the absolute success of our project.

[AUDITABILITY] Please provide information on whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project in Catalyst or an entirely new one.

No, it's a new proposal.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Rating

SDG Goals

8 - Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

9 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

17 - Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

SDG Subgoals

17.16 - Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries

17.17 - Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships

17.3 - Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources

17.6 - Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge-sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism

17.8 - Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology

8.3 - Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services

9.5 - Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending

9.b - Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities