Contest: DeAnalytics Q3/21 Token Distribution Program

Contest: DeAnalytics Q3/21 Token Distribution Program

Short description

The FreeTON project regularly receives partnership requests. The potential partner must be carefully studied to make an informed decision.

It is necessary to check potential partners and applicants for the accuracy of the declared information about themselves and the enrichment of additional information from open data sources (OSINT).

Contest entry period:

July 1, 11:59 PM UTC - September 30, 23:59 PM UTC


Auditing approach:

Anyone can prepare a report, publish it without taking into account the value of this work, counting on a fee.

Problems and prerequisites for the need to develop a new approach to verification of partners:

  • Often, partnerships are accepted and disbursed before reports are released. No one will wait for reports from review teams without the assurance that the report will appear at all. As a consequence, the value of reports in decision-making decreases. Reports submitted too late have no value.

  • Many reports of the same type are published for one potential partner. Plagiarism of data is present.

  • In assessing the contests outcomes for verification of potential partners the quantity is taken into account, but the quality of reports and the timeliness of their preparation are not taken into account.

  • Affiliation of a number of current participants who check and completely discredit the system, reports are duplicated with different designs and forms only for the purpose of collecting the maximum number of prizes.

Proposed format:

Creation of a working group of 3 non-affiliated reviewers or teams. Each team is selected for 1 quarter.

Each team undertakes to provide reports on each partner no later than 10 calendar days. Works submitted after 10 calendar days will not be counted towards activity.

If no team has prepared a report on some partner, the total motivation budget is reduced in proportion to the number of unverified potential partners.



Evaluation criteria and winning conditions

Hard criteria

The report must include:

  • General information about a potential partner
  • Statistical information on the audience
  • Information about the applicant
  • Business reputation of a potential partner
  • Links to data sources

Each team confirms that it is not affiliated with other teams of reviewers or affiliated with the applicant or potential partner.

In case, the affiliation with a potential partner is present, the team undertakes to inform, noting this fact in the publication on the forum and in the report itself.

If a team has hidden information about affiliation with another team or partner, and this is revealed, at the discretion of the jury, the application of the checking team may be excluded from the motivation.

At the end of the quarter, each team submits a progress report, which should include the following information:

Potential partner name The applicant Application date of potential partner Report publication date on the forum Link to the report on the forum

Each team undertakes to accurately display the collected information, its distortion is not allowed. Each team is committed to upholding the principles of integrity and objectivity.

Soft criteria

At the discretion of the review team, the report can be supplemented with any other information that will be a reinforcing factor in the work.

Based on the international orientation of the FreeTON project, the report should be in English. Translations into other languages will be a reinforcing factor, but not the key.

Rewards :

A budget of 150,000 tokens is planned to motivate the review teams. This motivation will be spent for 100% if 20 or more potential partners come. The prize pool will be split as a percentage between the 3 currently selected Review Teams and the candidates for the next reporting period. Motivation will be distributed among the teams with more than 5 points.

Received: 20 potential partnerships

Initial budget: 150.000 tokens

The work of the team No. 1 was assessed by the jury with an average score of 9 points

The work of team No. 2 was assessed by the jury with an average score of 8.9 points

The work of the team No. 3 was assessed by the jury with an average score of 4.5 points

Team No. 3 falls out of the distribution of motivation. The jurys assessments indicate a weak competitive component of the work of the team No. 3 (There are a weak level of reports, insufficient activity in terms of the number of checks, non-compliance with the obligations undertaken to check partners).

Motivation is shared between the work of Team 1 and Team 2.

If any potential partner was not checked by any team, or reports were received later than 10 days, then the total budget is proportionally reduced:

Received: 30 partnerships

Initial budget: 150.000 tokens

Total verified: 25 partners (5 potential partners were not verified, or reports were not submitted on time)

Adjusted budget: 150.000 / 30 * 25 = 125.000

If the number of potential partnerships is less than 20, then the motivation is proportionally reduced:

Received: 18 partnerships

Initial budget : 150,000 tokens (with 20 or more potential partnerships)

Adjusted budget: 150.000 / 20 * 18 = 135.000

The funds are allocated from the A&S SG budget.

The unallocated tokens will remain in the A&S SG reserve and will be used for the next DeAnalytics contest.

Ranking of prizes:

The places of the selected inspection teams and participants are determined in accordance with the jurys scores:

1st place - 45%

2nd place - 30%

3rd place - 15%

TOTAL: 90% of the motivation budget

The remaining 10% will go to motivate work that was done by the candidates for reviewers for the next period.

The principle of selecting the verifying teams::

Reviewers fall into two categories:

  • Candidate for reviewers for the next reporting period
  • Selected candidates for review in the current reporting period

Reviewer candidates:

In order to become a candidate for reviewers for the next reporting period, a participant or team needs to check at least 3 partners in accordance with the terms of this contest. Also, prove the ability to carry out high-quality work in the required time frame (10 days from the date of receipt of the application for a potential partnership). With the proven plagiarism fact of data, the work is excluded.

The motivation allocated to candidates for the next period (10% of the total amount) is distributed in proportion to the number of reports that have been made.

Selection of check teams for the reporting period:

The selection of three teams is made from the number of teams that previously conducted checks (at least 3 reports published on the forum). Teams nominate themselves for this role on the forum page under this document. Teams declare no affiliation with other teams who also filed. They note the readiness to undertake the obligation to check all partners, no later than 10 days from the date of submission.

The initial members of the Analytic and Support Subgovernance, after conducting a joint communication, submit a Proposal with the selected 3 teams, which are ready to take over the verification of partners. In the future, the choice of the verifying team will be regulated by this document.

The Rotation principle:

If one or more members of the selected teams for the selected quarter scored less than 5 points, then he cannot qualify for checks in the next quarter within the main group of checking, one of the best candidates becomes his place.

The checking team, which took the third place, is replaced by one of the candidates with the maximum number of points and more than 5 points (provided that such an applicant is present).

AMA session

At the end of each quarter, the results are summed up in the form of an AMA session with the participation of all checking teams, where the results of the checking are summed up. Participation in the AMA session is a prerequisite for each of the checking teams (acting within the current period and candidates for the next period). AMA session is held within 15 calendar days following the reporting period.

The purpose of the AMA session is to develop the best verification practices, identify recommendations for the next period, as well as complicate the process of creating fictional characters (multi-accounts) who submit work with checks.

The Decentralization principle:

Decentralization implies the distribution of the center of decision-making. In the proposed approach, the principle remains 100%. Anyone can submit their work in accordance with this document. Also apply for motivation if the work is timely and of high quality. And he can also join the working group, having won the competition for the right to undertake the obligation to check each partner, for which he will receive motivation. The conditions are built in such a way as to ensure the stability and completeness of the checks of each partner. The rotation principle described above will also facilitate the emergence of new candidates for the working group and will increase the level and speed of reviews.


  • Criteria for evaluating for the jury::
  1. Completeness of checking statistical data on a potential partner
  2. The presence of verification of the potential partner applicant
  3. Availability of conclusion on partnership
  4. The speed of the audit (within the allotted time budget of 10 days)

● The juror must have a solid understanding of the described subject in order to provide a score and feedback. If not, the juror should choose to “Abstain”.

● Jurors or whose team(s) intend to participate in this contest by providing submissions lose their right to vote in this contest.

● Each juror will vote by rating each submission on a scale of 1 to 10 or can choose to reject it if it does not meet requirements or vote “Abstain” if they feel unqualified to judge.

● Jurors must provide feedback on submissions or lose their reward.

● The Jury will reject duplicate, sub-par, incomplete, or inappropriate submissions.

● The number of days for jury voting is hereby set at 10 days

Jury rewards:

An amount equal to 20% of the total amount of all tokens awarded to the winners of the contest will be distributed among the Jury who vote and provide feedback. The amount of 20% is related to the need not only to review the applications, but also to review the reports of each review team from the working group and potential candidates. Which is a very laborious process…


I would like to clarify something,
as I can see we’re at the very beginning of the transition to the proposed format of work now:

  1. Under this post teams that have actively worked on partner analytics before should announce themselves
  2. The A&S jury will select 3 teams from among them , and selected teams will be responsible for the current quarter.
  3. in addition to the selected 3 teams during the current quarter, any individual or team can carry out similar work, in accordance with the submitted document.
  4. According to the results of the quarter, participants / participant can take one of 3 prizes
  • ANY participants / participant ?
    NOT ONLY any of the three teams selected by the jury at the beginning of the quarter?

If so, what is the point for teams to declare at the very beginning, if this does not give them any guarantees of victory?

1 Like

As I understand it, the selected teams from the beginning have the advantage that they will be given priority for the first 3 prizes.


What option is provided in the absence of the 3rd team?

@artist @elsbet , есть какие-то обновления по

  • по подготовке пропозала с выбранными командами?

Еще интересует момент: согласно принятому proposal KPI отчеты не учитываются в общем количестве АО. Мы работаем согласно данному proposal, либо ждать дополнений? Нужна определенность, чтобы не вносились изменения задним числом, либо мы были заранее о них уведомлены.

Насколько мне известно, так как действующих команд всего две, выбирать особо неизкого. Если бы было например пять команд - тогда да, пришлось бы делать выбор (думаю до этого еще далеко).
Как по мне, отчеты KPI = AO (1в1), уже перемусолили это в прошлых DeAnalytics. Уточнить по дополнениям можно у автора (как вариант на звонке)

PS. я бы делал все подряд.

As far as I know, since there are only two active teams, there is not much to choose. If there were, for example, five teams - then yes, would have to make a choice (I think this is still far away).
As for me, the reports KPI = AO (1in1), have already overused this in the past DeAnalytics. You can check with the author about the additions (as an option on the call)

PS. I would do everything in a row.

Ну по поводу команд ясно, меня больше интересует, когда будет принят proposal и будут ли изменения к основному, т.к в последнем квартале наблюдалась нездоровая практика вносить изменения под конец квартала, чего быть не должно.

1 Like

My bro, you are good at analytics!
but this one isn’t for you because you are thinking in a seriously long term and free ton isn’t here to stay for a long term race with global crypto projects!

After one or two month or some later time, free ton will not able to find or search because they all (ron, ton labs etc.) will be hidden somewhere and Interpol will be searching them for a crypto scam!

My team is participating in DeAnalytics Q3/21 Token Distribution Program


I started preparing an overview table on the work done by the analytical teams.

This table is independent. It is designed to simplify the work of A&S jury members and the collection of analytical (KPI) reports for Q3. Anyone can offer corrections and additional data.

The jury members need to independently study the informative content of the reports.

1 Like



This is our submission:

Это заявка нашей команды:

I have prepared an independent table on the activities of Analytical Teams. (To help the jury members, each member of the jury should evaluate the quality and informative content of the reports independently)
Q3 achievements of analytical teams - Google Sheets
@lvv , @nn52nn - check, if necessary, recommend what to add.


It is necessary to compare the dates of submission of the main analytical reports.

It seems to me that in Q4 it is necessary to oblige in the name of the report file to indicate the date of PDF publication, then it will be much easier to count. I already did this in Q3.