Concrete Project Ranking Model

[WhyldWanderer]

So happy to see this up in the forum and it has been fun collaborating and brainstorming!

Things that I feel are worth mentioning or asking so that we can consider them in this model.

• Who gets to participate in Pairwise (BudgetBox)? Just verified projects? Can we allow everyone to participate but give extra weight to those users with projects, verified projects, expertise, etc? We could use non-transferrable tokens… Although we wouldnt be able to revoke the token so once we issue it, they would have access forever. Maybe we should consider giving people who have history in the non-profit charity space extra weight as well… hmmm.

• I want to point to Mitch’s comment in the forum post about mandatory updates. He mentions ways that we can take updates into consideration when determining rank.

Going further, if we choose to incorporate project updates into a project ranking system we could say that any updates above the downvote threshold are disqualified, meaning the project is ranked as if that update never existed. We could also allow project mods to manually disqualify updates as well.

@JakeS

But who will make up the evaluation panel / Impact Assessors for this? Like what groups of people, assuming some internal Giveth contributors, some external specialists, some project owners and donors or will they be considered too partial?

To start, it would be included in the verification process. projects will be incentivized to offer this information because it means their project will rank higher. A lot of organizations already have this information, its just a matter of sharing it with us. We also are taking into consideration that smaller organizations may not have this information and offer them partial points for at least submitting a well-thought out theory of change. There is a document linked in the original post that outlines the idea for impact assessment with little overhead. Do you have any ideas on how we can bring in more diversity to the team of Impact Assessors that will take into consideration that we have a small team and not a ton of internal resources for it? Maybe another blockchain for good or impact evaluation DAO that would want to collaborate somehow?

@aabugosh

What about having different filter views or ranking pages for different criteria?

I assume we will have filters for each… you could filter or sort by GIVpower rank, pairwise score, impact score… and the default would take into consideration all of these things for a well-rounded score.