| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Score | Scoring Notes | |||||||||||||||||||
2 | Basic Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 1. Notary Allocator Pathway Name | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
4 | 2. Organization | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
5 | 3. On-chain address for Allocator (recommend a new address) | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
6 | 4. Country of Operation | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
7 | 5. Region of Operation | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
8 | 6. Type Of Allocator | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
9 | 7. DataCap requested for allocator for 12 months of activity | Information provided | - | - | - | - | Not scored | |||||||||||||||||||
10 | Unique Contribution to Community | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | 8. Is your allocator providing a unique, new, or diverse pathway to DataCap? | Standard pathway with no unique features, similar to many existing allocators. Little differentiation in approach in distributing DataCap. No unique value proposition, copy of other application. | Includes a few minor new features or varaiations to existing models. Some attempt to target underserved areas or introduce modest innovations | Offers a clearly defined new or improved pathway that addresses gaps in the current program. Introduces noticeable improvements in efficiency, accessibility, or client engagement | Provides pathways that support diverse problems, demonstrates a strong commitment to enhancing the Fil+ ecosystem with new methodologies or technologies. Showcases strong and compelling features that clearly set it apart from competitors. | Creating a new pathway that is first of its kind, sets a new standard for allocator models with exceptonal features that address unmet needs in the ecosystem. | ||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Client Due Diligence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | 10. Who are your target clients? | Lack of specialization | - | - | - | Appropriate selection of target clients, matches proposed pathway | ||||||||||||||||||||
14 | 11. Describe in as much detail as possible how you will perform due diligence on clients. | Questions only cover basic demographics such as name and type of data. | - | - | - | Extensive standardized list of questions that gathers qualitative details about client, data, and proposed deal-making. Questions are captured in a way to support quantitative compliance checks post-allocation. | ||||||||||||||||||||
15 | 12. Please specify how many questions you’ll ask, and provide a brief overview of the questions. | Limited specificity of questions with only minimal diligence covered | - | - | - | Extensive list, consistent and appropriate to pathway, with robust details | ||||||||||||||||||||
16 | 13. Will you use a 3rd-party "Know your client" (KYC) service? | No, not using any 3rd party KYC system. | Aggrees to use a system, but does not yet know which provider or how integration will be handled for their pathway and tooling. | Proposes new provider PoC, no known usage yet | New KYC provider with limited coverage/eligbility. Some test cases and sample integration | Yes, using reputable 3rd party system that ensures client eligibility, checks against known sanctions lists, and mitigates sybil risk. For example: Togggle | ||||||||||||||||||||
17 | 14. Can any client apply to your pathway, or will you be closed to only your own internal clients? (eg: bizdev or self-referral) | Closed access: Only accepts from internal or specific clients, not open for new clients. | Limited Access: Primarily serves internal clients, but allows some external applications with strict criteria. Has a simple application form with limited guidance | Moderated Access: Open to external clients but with a vetting process to prioritize internal or affiliated clients. Provides a strucutred applciation process with clear guidelines | Open and Assisted Access: Welcomes all clients, with support to assist new applicants. Offers resources like FAQs, guides, or workshops for client onboarding | Fully Open and Inclusive Access: Open application process with robust support systems. Actively encourages diversity through outreach and community engagement. | ||||||||||||||||||||
18 | 15. How do you plan to track the rate at which DataCap is being distributed to your clients? | Manual tracking, private and not open sourced | Private tooling that is non open sourced and keeps DC distribution tracking private | Specific tooling that is open sourced, but rate of tracking is very minimal | Uses open sourced tooling to track regular updates and provides basic analytics on distribution rate | Real-time tracking on DC distribution, integrates and uses multiple open sourced tooling | consider changing from 1-5 no detail to high detail | |||||||||||||||||||
19 | Data Diligence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | 17. What type(s) of data would be applicable for your pathway? | No description of data type(s) and scale | Short/vague description of data type(s) and scale | Satisfactory description of data type(s). Includes mentions of public/private/enterprise etc. but no mention of scale | Good description of data type(s) and mention of scale. Includes breakdown of public/private/enterprise etc. | Holsitic description of data type(s) and scale makes logical sense. Includes detailed breakdown of public/private/enterprise etc. | the answers are selected from list, hard to choose here | |||||||||||||||||||
21 | 18. How will you verify a client’s data ownership? Will you use 3rd-party KYB (know your business) service to verify enterprise clients? | No description of data ownership verification | Short/vague description of data ownership verification | Satisfactory description of data ownership verification but lacks implementation details | Good description of data ownership verification and has some implementation details | Holsitic description of data ownership verification and has some implementation details and includes detailed breakdown for each data client type (public/private/enterprise) | ||||||||||||||||||||
22 | 19. How will you ensure the data meets local & regional legal requirements? | Short/vague mention of complying with regional/legal compliance | - | Above average checks in place for regional/legal compliance and has some implementation plan | - | Holsitic checks in place for regional/legal compliance and has detailed implementation plan | ||||||||||||||||||||
23 | 20. What types of data preparation will you support or require? | No support for DP/requirement | Short/vague strategy to support DP/requirement | Satisfactory strategy to support DP/requirement. Lacks consistency | Good strategy to support DP/requirement, has logical consistency, implementation plan with existing data prep tools | Holsitic strategy to support for DP/requirement, is dyanmic (leverages multiple approaches/external partnerships) and follows logical consistency | ||||||||||||||||||||
24 | 21. What tools or methodology will you use to sample and verify the data aligns with your pathway? | No data verification plan | Short/vague data verification plan | Satisfactory data verification plan but lacks description of tools/methology to implement | Good data verification plan and has some details on tools/methology to implement | Holistic data verification plan and very detailed outline on tools/methology to successfully implement | ||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Data Distribution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | 22. How many replicas will you require to meet programmatic requirements for distribution? | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||
27 | 23. What geographic or regional distribution will you require? | ONE region with existing Notary Allocator coverage, multiple locations, VPNs supported | - | TWO geopolitical regions, multiple physical locations, VPNs supported, 2+ SP owner operators | - | THREE OR MORE regions including unique geopolitical/language coverage, each replica at different physical location, no or minimal VPN, different SP owner operators | ||||||||||||||||||||
28 | 24. How many Storage Provider owner/operators will you require to meet programmatic requirements for distribution? | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6+ | ||||||||||||||||||||
29 | 25. Do you require equal percentage distribution for your clients to their chosen SPs? Will you require preliminary SP distribution plans from the client before allocating any DataCap? | No initial client plan required | - | Requires some initial client SP distribution plan, very flexible and non-standardized, allows client to update between allocations | - | Requires detailed client distribution plan, following a standardized template, with quantitative (minerID & percentage distribution) and qualitative (SP KYB info) details about SP prior to initial allocation | ||||||||||||||||||||
30 | 26. What tooling will you use to verify client deal-making distribution? | No standardized or automated tooling to verify client deal-making distribution | - | Some open-source or custom tools may be used, minimal PoC's or implementation plan exists | - | Open-sourced tools available to community (AC Bot, CID Checker, etc) to automatically check and report on client deal-making distribution prior to subsequent allocations | ||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 27. How will clients meet SP distribution requirements? | Client responsible for end-to-end deal-making with their chosen SPs | - | Some support provided to clients to assist in SP discovery & deal-making, such as SP contact forums or reputation info | - | Programmatic (such as software or smart contract) deal distribution to set of vetted and reputable SPs | ||||||||||||||||||||
32 | 28. As an allocator, do you support clients that engage in deal-making with SPs utilizing a VPN? | Will not ask, track, or investigate | - | No opinion for or against | - | Willing to support clients who work with SPs that utilize VPNs, but requires additional KYB checks and still enforces distribution, even if utilizing VPN | ||||||||||||||||||||
33 | DataCap Allocation Strategy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | 29. Will you use standardized DataCap allocations to clients? | No, per client determinations | - | Yes, but multiple different allocations schedules or ranges | - | Yes, single allocation schedule | ||||||||||||||||||||
35 | 30. Allocation Tranche Schedule to clients: | Vague or unclear description of allocation and/or max amounts per client at high risk level | - | Minimal or complicated tranche schedule, missing some details such as maximum per client | - | Clearly defined allocation strategy across multiple tranches with maximum amounts inline with risk | ||||||||||||||||||||
36 | 31. Will you use programmatic or software based allocations? | No, manually determined, constructed, and executed | - | Some proposed system, with minimal PoC implementation plan | - | Yes, with existing tooling or robust implementation plan | ||||||||||||||||||||
37 | 32. What tooling will you use to construct messages and send allocations to clients? | Unknown or no specific set of tooling identified | - | Desktop based, Filecoin implementation, such as manual construction in Lotus terminal | - | Open-sourced tools (UX/UI), such as Notary Registry | ||||||||||||||||||||
38 | 33. Describe the process for granting additional DataCap to previously verified clients. | Limited description of subsequent allocation plan specifics | - | Minimal subsequent allocation plan, requiring complicated or inconsistent manual triggers | - | Clearly defined subsequent allocation strategy, supported by automation, aligned with allocation tranche scales | ||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Tooling and Bookkeeping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | 34. Describe in as much detail as possible the tools used for: client discoverability & applications, due diligence & investigation, bookkeeping, on-chain message construction, client deal-making behavior, tracking overall allocator health, dispute discussion & resolution, community updates & comms | Generic tooling with minimal customization, not open sourced | Basic web interface or open source information on bookkeeping | Integrates mulitple open-source tools to build more streamlined interfaces, bookkeeping process is open-sourced and well-structured. | Open source custom tooling, full-featured web interface that integrates bookkeeping, on-chain messaging, and client behavior analytics | Processes are largely automated, alert systems for compliance and DD. Open sourced tooling with great UI/UX & documentation | ||||||||||||||||||||
41 | 35. Will you use open-source tooling from the Fil+ team? | Exclusively uses proprietary tools with no community access | Primarily uses proprietary tools but has begun to integrate or develop open-source tools | Balanced use of open source and proprietary tools; contributes back to the open-source community occasionally | Majority of tools are open source with regular contributions to the community; well-documented | Exclusively or almost exclusively uses open-source tools that are well documented | ||||||||||||||||||||
42 | 36. Where will you keep your records for bookkeeping? How will you maintain transparency in your allocation decisions? | No specific way to bookkeep, manual record-keeping; high potential for human error; low transparency | Basic digital record-keeping; some errors; moderate transparency | Digital record-keeping with good standards, metrics, visuals, etc that is open sourced and documented | Automated digital bookkeeping with audit trails, high transparency, (L3 and above) | Real-time updates; transparent, open sourced, L4 and above | ||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Risk Mitigation, Auditing and Compliance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | 37. Describe your proposed compliance check mechanisms for your own clients. How will you track and audit your own DataCap distribution, and the downstream usage by your clients? How much tolerance will you have for new clients? | No compliance checks/mechanisms in place and no description of frequency | Short/vague description of compliance checks/mechanisms. Evaluator has a difficult time following the logic and lacks implementation details including inconsistent frequency with proposed onboarding rate | Satisfactory description of compliance checks/mechanisms. Reader can mostly follow the logic, some evidence of implementation details and some consistent frequency with proposed onboarding rate | Good description of compliance checks/mechanisms. Evaluator can follow the logic consistently and detailed outline of implementation details and frequency with proposed onboarding rate | Holistic description of compliance checks/mechanisms. Evaluator identified innovative proposals to enforce compliance with detailed outline of implementation details and frequency with proposed onboarding rate aligns well with the proposed checks | ||||||||||||||||||||
45 | 38. Describe your process for handling disputes. Highlight response times, transparency, and accountability mechanisms. | No process description and response times | Short/vague description of process/dispute resolution including inconsistent response times and mechanisms | Satisfactory description of process/dispute resolution including consistent response times and mechanisms | Good description of process/dispute resolution including consistent response times and mechanisms. Includes some mention of interface/tooling | Holistic description of dispute resolution process, including inconsistent response times, mechanisms, and detailed mention of interfaces & tooling | ||||||||||||||||||||
46 | 39. Detail how you will announce updates to tooling, pathway guidelines, parameters, and process alterations. | No process for announcing upgrades | Short/vague description of announcement process with minimal mention of tools/interfaces | Satisfactory description of announcement process with mention of tools and their interaction with rules | Good description of announcement process with mention of tools and their interaction with rules. Includes at least 1 clear channel for announcment | Holistic description of announcement process with mention of tools and processes and their interaction with rules. Includes multiple channels for announcment | ||||||||||||||||||||
47 | 40. How long will you allow the community to provide feedback before implementing changes? | No process in place for feedback | Short/vague description of feedback process | Satisfactory description of feedback including some details on incorporating it | Good description of feedback process and incorporation strategies. Includes Includes at least 1 clear channel for feedback | Holistic description of feedback process with detailed outline of incorporation strategies. Includes multiple channels for feedback | ||||||||||||||||||||
48 | 41. Regarding security, how will you structure and secure the on-chain notary address? If you will utilize a multisig, how will it be structured? Who will have administrative & signatory rights? | No mention of rights and ownership | Short/vague mention of rights and ownership | Satisfactory details on rights and ownership that indicates privacy measures in place | Good details on rights and ownership that indicates above average privacy measures in place | Holisitic details on rights and ownership that indicates privacy measures are core to allocator operation | ||||||||||||||||||||
49 | 42. Will you deploy smart contracts for program or policy procedures? If so, how will you track and fund them? | No | - | Minimal smart contract plans, low implementation details | - | Yes, with holistic details, examples, and info about tracking and funding | ||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Monetization | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | 43. Outline your monetization models for the services you provide as a notary allocator pathway. | No monetization model in place and no description of potential monetization pathways. | Vague monetization model with no fee structure | Satisfactory details on monetization model but lacks logical alignment with proposed onboarding process, targets and fee structure | Good details on monetization model and fee strcuture has some logical alignment with proposed onboarding process and targets | Holistic details on monetization model, which may include a justification for not applying any monetization to the pathway. Dynamic approach to have multiple channels of monetization/fee structure and has good logical alignment with proposed onboarding process and targets | ||||||||||||||||||||
52 | 44. Describe your organization's structure, such as the legal entity and other business & market ventures. | No description of structure | - | Minimal, vague description of structure, unclear differentiation with other ecosystem entities | - | Very clearly defined business model, with strong ecosystem reputation and clear description of funding/partnerships | ||||||||||||||||||||
53 | 45. Where will accounting for fees be maintained? | No accounting process in place | Vague accounting process | Satisfactory details on accounting process | Clear details on accounting process | Holistic details on accounting process | ||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Past Experience, Affiliations, Reputation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | 46. If you've received DataCap allocation privileges before, please link to prior notary applications. | No past experience as notary | - | Past experience as notary and only supporting documentation provided | - | Past experience as notary with multiple links/documentation provided | ||||||||||||||||||||
56 | 47. How are you connected to the Filecoin ecosystem? Describe your (or your organization's) Filecoin relationships, investments, or ownership. | No existing relationship | - | Existing relationships but no details | - | Existing relationships and details provided | ||||||||||||||||||||
57 | 48. How are you estimating your client demand and pathway usage? Do you have existing clients and an onboarding funnel? | No existing clients | Short/vague mention of client acquisition strategy | Satisfactory details on client acquisition strategy but forecast does not make logical sense | Good details on client acquisition strategy and forecast makes logical sense | Holistic details on client acquisition strategy and forecast makes logical sense | ||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Additional Disclosures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | 49. Full legal name AND country of residence of the individuals who will have access to the Notary Allocator Address: | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
60 | 50. Email address for individuals and overall organization contact | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
61 | 51. Slack Unique ID's | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
62 | 52. GitHub Handles | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
63 | 53. Confirm on-chain notary address for DataCap is secured | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
64 | 54. Additional Network Address Ownership | Additional information must be provided | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
65 | 55. Upfront Ownership Disclosures | Acknowledge | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
66 | 56. Commitment to Efficiency / SLA | Acknowledge | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
67 | 57. Distributed Impact | Acknowledge | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
68 | 58. Due Diligence & Bookkeeping Plan | Acknowledge | - | - | - | - | Not Scored | |||||||||||||||||||
69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||