Free TON

Idea Management System Proposal [Finished]

Good idea!

But I think that the vote should be in several rounds. In the first round, there can be many participants and I’m not sure that for each idea you need to create a separate chat. I think that this is necessary for the applications of the finalists.

But if there are not very many applications, then several rounds are not necessary and we can create chats for all idea proposals.

But I like the idea that we need a chat to discuss the idea. It is important that it is constructive.

I also think that it will be important that the best ideas are published on Github.

Хорошая идея!

Но я думаю, что голосование должно быть в несколько туров. В первом туре может быть много участников, и я не уверен, что для каждой идеи нужно создать отдельный чат. Я думаю, что это необходимо для заявлений финалистов.

Но если заявок не очень много, то несколько раундов не нужны, и мы можем создать чаты для всех предложенных идей.

Но мне нравится идея, что нам нужен чат, чтобы обсуждать идет. Важно, что это было конструктивно.

Я также думаю, что важно, чтобы лучшие идеи были опубликованы на Github.


Well actually, I really appreciate your idea regarding the IPFS for storage final papers. Guess, this option is optimal due to trade-off of security and and easing.


You need to create the division of ideas on different subjects and to give them a form of understanding, perhaps even formal in the form of questionnaires


I think we need to develop freeton’s website page that works with TON Storage and gives idea management tools.


I guess that this idea is perfect


HI everybody here ) My proposal for idea management systems:

  1. Yep we need a bot for 1st circle of idea promotion. This bot should accept Ideas of 3 or more types for example: “community idea” , “technical idea”, “marketing/promotion idea”. After person submit his proposal for example in section for “community idea” - bot send all the submited information to related group “TON FREE group for community ideas”. in that group already siting part of FreeTon community that are interested in this area, different community managers and just casual TonFree users that are interested in project ecosistem. And during the month they are discusing all such ideas related to this group. During that period person who submited his idea can answer community questions and fix his proposal. And when it’s comming time to vote - for example at the end of month, community members in that group Voting for the best 3 ( maybe more ) ideas.
    To prevent different types of abuse i think in such groups should be some kind of rank sistem, for exampe users who having many messages in it and were added to this group long time ago should have much more voice power. In future when FreeTon will have integration with Telegram big plus to vote power can have Token holders for example. Or maybe account in telegram can be conneted with person activity on this forum - and this also can affect voting power of each member.

  2. When each of this groups voted and each of them have choose 3 best ideas during the month - we are going to the main vote where Validators ( or their representatives ) and community well known persons may choose a best idea, or several best ideas that would be sent in development.

Benefits of using telegram as a main platform for discussing ideas - the biggest and the most active part of FreeTon community using telegram and already communicating there. So there won’t be any issues to add several groups related for community ideas. Also discussing fresh ideas “in live” will be most effective.

Basicly - my main point is to separate different types of ides to realted groups. I don’t like the proposal to create group for each idea coz nobody won’t visit all this 100+ created groups. They all will be mostly empty and community may miss really interesting idea.

Also bot should navigate people with questions to make their idea as clear as possible for community. And show them possible reward if their idea will be chosen.
And ofc this bot should have some kind of pre-moderation coz many trolls may use it to send different racist or sexual abuse information to groups that realated for voting and discussion of real ideas. :upside_down_face:


is it the best option?

1 Like

Proposal: Idea Management System

I do not feel to have fully grasped this topic yet and my proposal is a work in progress.
I am submitting it since the deadline is today.
I would be happy to continue working on this if the community decides that something like this should be used or have further work done on.

The Problem:

It is very hard to coordinate the communication within groups.
This is getting more complicated with bigger group sizes and open access.
This makes it really hard to have high quality discussion and stay on a topic with some back and forth argumentation.
When a project grows the relative and absolute size of “newbies” grows which lowers the quality of discussions.

Giving everybody the same right and weight results in low content in public discussions and the forming of private groups to increase quality at the cost of excluding ideas from the public.

chat based system dont work well:


  • engage users
  • does not work well with >20 active users
  • arguments with back and forth are nearly impossible unless in real time

I have witnessed this in various telegram and skype chats that grew to >100 participants.
Slack and discord chat groups try to advance on this by offering multiple channels to enable parallel discussions on different topics while engaging users in the popular chat format.
Slack has the option to use threads to answer to posts, which is a nice feature, but mostly underused.
The reply feature in telegram is just a quote feature and not well designed for splitting off discussions from a chat.
telegram reply improvement idea:
An improvement would be to have the option to have subchats from any chatgroup to reply back and forth on a specific topic.
These subchats could be viewed by any member of the chat by expanding the mainchat.

Discord is also lacking any reply feature other than a quote which makes it hard to have longer lasting discussions.

forum based systems:


  • discussions dont need to be real time
  • replies back and forth are possible
  • reputation system can be implemented
  • people are lazy and prefer to use chats

So to me a forum based system should be favored over a chat based system!

existing forum based systems:

Forums like Reddit offer a better way for on topic discussions and include the possibilty to order threads via upvotes and downvotes which is helping to promote higher quality. But it lacks a reputation system that gives members with higher reputation a better vote.
Reddit karma:
karma uses complicated algorithms which they did not publish afaik. I am not sure how much you can fake karma using bots.
I would think reddit has algo to spot bots and dont count their votes.
Reddit Coins:
you can give awards to very good posts. You have to pay for coins first to give them away. So there is a cost to stop abuse.


This is a really good platform for having detailed discussions and reasonsing Pros vs Cons.
It could f.ex. be used to have a public discussion on a contest.
Every contest participant can post their idea and all users can comment, post pros/cons and judge much much they like the solution.
It can even show different perspectives f.ex. you can filter for how a certain user judges on these proposals.
I want to look more into this, esp how to implement a reputation system into this!

This solution is a clear improvement over the forum we have right now.

here is a post with possible further improvements:

My proposed reputation system/algorithm:

My proposal is to build on existing forum-based solutions and create a reputation system that orders content by upvotes/downvotes relative to the reputation of the voters.
This can be very effective to give bots/spammers very little reputation.
For this the starting point of who has all the reputation is important.

Global vs individual ranking:
My goal would be to ultimately have a system where everybody could choose their own reputation system starting point based on who they trust/like. This would need a new app.
But for a public forum that is not possible. Instead the starting point could be the admins of the forum or TON holders.
Since we are having many contests here, contest winner could also gain reputation points in the contests.

How to base the reputation rankings

  • you start with a state and go from there. points could be inflationary.
  • f.ex. 10 admins start with 100 Points each.
  • For every post you can give up to 1-3 upvotes or 1-3 downvotes, which will add/substract points for the poster.
  • points are given based on the formula: number_votes * points_voter/100
    example: user 2Pac has 200 Points. He gives 2 Upvotes to user Zer0 for his good post. -> Zer0 receives 2*200/100 = 4 Points.
    2Pac receives +0.1% for his first 100 votes in the last 30 days and then +0.05% for the next 100 and so on. -> Making 100 votes/month is rewarded the most.

How to integrate quadratic voting?
Zer0 would gain points depending on how many votes 2Pac did in the last 30 days.

Up/downvoting users:
Instead of just upvoting posts, you could also up/downvote user f.ex. because they upvoted a post which you consider spam.
You can up/downvote every user every 30 days.

This system is inflationary by design. This means if you are inactive others will gain points exponentially while you stay flat.
New accounts have zero say until they posted something that somebody with reputation liked.
-> No spamming by new account.
-> spammers can be downvoted very quickly and loose all their reputation

Implement bonding curves:
Upvoting/Downvoting should be rewarded depending on how others are up/downvoting it in the future. -> You stake part of your reputation behind a post by up/downvoting
The OP obv should have the biggest stake. Early voter have a bigger stake and late voters. Bonding curves have this feature.
This is a solution for the oracle problem as it incentivises to vote in a way which aligns with the community. The obv downside is that minorities are suppressed.
Maybe only expect 10-30 votes per user/30 days instead of 100-300. -> dont incentivise to vote on posts which are not clearly good or bad.

Different buttons to make it easy:
Upvote = 1x
Silver badge = 2x
Gold badge = 3x
downvote = -1x
spam = -2x
abusive post = -3x

Other good reads about the topic:


Forums are not very popular right now and I think that voting on the forum will not have much activity. This can make it possible for older users to have a lot of influence.

1 Like

but do you want people that are too lazy to read a forum make decision via a chat poll if that means that they will make an uninformed decision because their favorite medium is chat, which is not able to enable fruitful discussion?

Also you would need to link the vote to coin holdings or use another way to deter botnets, which is not easy as discussed in the airdrop contest thread.

1 Like

Problem Statement:

Idea Management System is required to better manage the ideas and also spread it and use it as a platform for jury to go through all ideas and rank them.

In current freeton forum, there is a problem is disgusting real solutions ideas from other comments.

Proposed Solution :

I will suggest the use of Q&A platform like Quora ( ) or make a similar one, it won’t take much time to even develop it from scratch.

  • A contest can be started by the admins in the form of a Question and link can be sent o Telegram Groups and attached on .

  • Participants can go to the link and write the solution in form of an answer, which is visible to everyone. Public can upvote good proposals and can also discuss further regarding project in comment section.

Here an example :

  • After writing the proposed solution, participant can share the link in the proposal section of the freeton website along with wallet address.

Pros and Cons:

  1. If we directly use quora as a platform we don’t need to code for such a platform, and this solution can be implemented in a very short duration.

  2. Also if we use Quora as a platform, we will get more visibility for our Freeton project.

  3. Its easier to manage and participate and easier for jury to assess solutions. It has all features like time stamp, comments, upvotes and all solutions ca be visible in a single page in an orderly manner, so anyoe can read from top to bottom all the solutions.

  4. Participant just have to write solution and provide link and jury just have to open that link, no need to create pdfs and other cumbersome things.

Cons: As we host our competitions on Quora so people will move our from and all go towards quora.

There are also multiple ideas like writing solutions as a medium blog and others in my mind, but i believe this is the best solution that I can think about.


I like this idea but I think that it is necessary for ideas that can reach the final stage of approval .

1 Like

here is an example of how this could look in Kialo:
You can have claims (=proposals) and then pros/cons for each and also comments.

an example of active discusssion:

I think quora would also be a decent option.


Whats the final submission date? here it says 04.06.2020 and here – 01.06.2020 - 08.06.2020 at 12:00 PM UTC

So I guess 08 is the due date for submissions. Correct?


Yes, the 08.06.2020 at 12:00 PM UTC is the correct date for final submissions.


Предложения из Surf.
Награда для лучших предложений.
Платный доступ


Here is my proposal.
Short review:

  • This forum is almost ok for ideas management, i suggest some improvements;
  • If idea management software is necessary, i collected some with open source (eXo platform, Loomio, Tallyfox Tallium, OpenideaL and Liquid Democracy).
    Link fo Pdf-file on Google docs

Today, blockchain is developing faster than user software. The number and technical equipment of “coins” is much greater than standard software solutions for the user.

Most blockchains have: blockchain separately, exchange separately, forum separately, voting separately, and so on. (examples: bitcoin, ether).

Free TON community is no exception :frowning:

In other words, a decentralized digital, self-governing community should be an asset / growth driver, as long as not a single coin succeeded.

At present, there is no official process of self-government with a convenient user interface that would quantitatively and qualitatively provide information from the community based on which significant changes to the protocol will be made.

In other words decentralized autonomous community has such novel set of requirements no existing software can fulfill, namely:

  1. Discussion on the governance topics, creation of working groups should be effective
  2. Access to on-chain voting process should be easy (1 click) and secure
  3. Participation should be encouraged but lack of it should not block the governance system function

Today, developers receive information from the community, in the form of comments, polls and other messages at different sites, not systematically and not qualitatively. The current community assessment mechanism for innovation and decision making is incredibly amorphous and not standardized.

Moreover, many members of the Free Ton Community are unaware of the existence of ongoing polls. This process does not imply a quantitative assessment of community sentiment. And it does not mean content management tools, both for an individual user and the community as a whole.

Today, in the public domain there is no solution combining these areas, which are necessary for a full-fledged statement of the problem, a collective choice of a solution and evaluation.

The list of platforms with the predominance of the 1st information component. (discussions)

Reddit, Slack, Discord, Notion, Rocket.Chat, Stride, Flock, Hangouts, Yandex.Yamb, Riot, Zulip chat

List 2 - Organizational (Voting / proposal / submission)






Even blockchains which are based on community governance such as Cosmos do not have comprehensive tools for user engagement and governance process management.

Free TON needs something like Ethereum Gitcoin platform ( but much simpler, streamlined and engaging from user experience step point and tight directly with a platform governance.

Here we present a project for FreeTON decentralized community management and governance based on principles described in Declaration of Decentralization.

The process of governance could be divided into two main functions:

  1. Information (Idea/discussions) – which is about information sharing, discussion and other user communication functions
  2. Organization (Voting/proposal/submission) – which is about decision making, voting and other collective decision making function based on the provided information.

Decision making:

Direct decentralized crypto democracy - a form of organization of a community forum, with the help of which the main decisions are initiated, adopted and executed directly by community members;

A convenient forum is a main tool to reach a collective decision through voting / referenda connected to the Free TON blockchain which gives maximum openness and reliability of the information provided.

The system allows to carry out a full cycle of community management activities: identify problems and bottlenecks, gather ideas and solutions to these problems, select them and refine the best solutions to the level of ready-to-implement and manage implementation.

All these actions are carried out by the participants of the system on the principles of collective interaction and crowdsourcing, which allows to make the most effective use of the power of the “collective mind” of the community.

How the system works

  • User authorisation is Free TON blockchain based
  • Community members share information in a simple text of a graphic forum, with easy navigation through Posts via Topics and Community Groups.
  • The content is easily filtered by Topic, Group and due date. Full text search is available.
  • At the touch of a button, any topic or comment turns into a community Voting proposal.
  • Users vote with a stake as described in the SMV specifications right on the Forum
  • The topic promotion in the feed and notifications will depend on the size of the total steak as well as due date for voting. All funds put by the participants of the vote are returned after the vote, the cost of each vote is held (protecting from bots and trolls).
  • Groups can be created and managed easily with their own topics, create and manage their own sub-community voting.

Status: active development. MVP will be ready for community to try next week.


Identified and selected literature has been placed in a table and on the suggested continuum
line. The placement on the continuum line is the result of a qualitative and rather explorative
analysis of the literature and serves as a way to have a sense of the focus in the literature and
to map the literature against each other. A short review of the literature will now be conducted
with the continuum in mind but independent of this perspective. The review is qualitative but
seeks to be true to the terms of the literature. Further on, in the discussion section, a more
critical view will be used in order to point out weaknesses and unanswered questions of the
identified literature.

  1. Academy of Management Proceedings &
    Membership Directory
    2002 Saatcioglu Using grounded inquiry to explore idea management for innovativeness
  2. Journal of Management Studies 2006 Vandenbosch
    et al. Idea management: A systemic view
  3. International Conference on Engineering
    2011 Gish Experiences with idea promoting initiatives
  4. Conference on Human
    Factors in Computing
    2008 Coughlan &
    Johnson Idea management in creative lives
  5. Creativity and Innovation Management 2011 Selart &
    Understanding the Role of Value-Focused
    Thinking in Idea Management
  6. International Journal
    of Product Development
    2010 Sandström &
    Idea management systems for a changing innovation landscape
  7. Conference on Human
    Factors in Computing
    2010 Bailey &
    What’s Your Idea? A Case Study of a Grassroots Innovation Pipeline within a Large Software Company
  8. Creativity and Innovation Management 2006 Bakker et al.
    Creativity (Ideas) Management in Industrial
    R&D Organizations: A Crea-Political Process
    Model and an Empirical Illustration of Corus
  9. R&D Management 2002 van Dijk &
    van den Ende
    Suggestion systems: transferring employee
    creativity into practicable ideas
  10. Journal of Product
    Innovation Management
    2009 Björk &
    Where Do Good Innovation Ideas Come From?
    Exploring the Influence of Network Connectivity on Innovation Idea Quality

In an earlier contribution on the subject of idea management, Green et al. (1983) analyses the
management of the flow of ideas in an R&D laboratory in a human information-processing
perspective. Here the authors use the understanding of human information-processing as an
analog, for example how the human brain processes information, synthesises, remembers, recalls etc. They presents a logic with human information-processing on the one side and organisational information-processes on the other side, equally contributing to the flow of ideas in
industrial R&D. Managerial implications are identified, concerning the generating of ideas,
capturing ideas, retaining ideas and retrieving ideas. It is interesting that this early study predicts the future of idea management and its strong connection to the use of computer technology as an analog to the human brain. This study was before the burst of the information technology and one could only imagine how IT would take part in the work practices as idea
processes and management. The analog is interesting and when brain mechanisms are placed
outside the head of people on an organisational level, interesting issues will occur in idea
process practices. In a contribution at the same time, Galbraith suggests a certain design
of the organisation where innovation ideas, more specific radical innovation ideas, have better
conditions. The term of idea management is used on a more individual level as a cognitive
and social process and concerns how ideas are developed and promoted through bargaining
and negotiating in the organisation.
Idea management literature is primarily based in the field of innovation management in organisations and as a part of the above described development of information technology, idea
management is also represented and developed in information technology literature dealing
with applications of idea management systems. As an example, an idea management system
for team creation system is developed by Xie & Zhang. They seek to understand the
process of team creation and develop a software tool to support and enhance the process. In
general, the idea process of the team creation is duplicated in the tool and made manageable
through the main steps of idea recognition, idea selection, idea evaluation, and idea visualisation.The work of Westerski et al. Suggests the use of
semantic web principles to link organisational systems for better idea assessments.
Studies of idea management most often imply an IT system for the sharing and storage of
ideas in innovation management literature. Even on a global level both within an organisation
and crossing the boundaries of the organisation. Brem & Voigt suggest the integration of
an idea management system where internal idea management is integrated with external
groups like suppliers, costumers, competitors, and other stakeholders which will improve the
chances of successful innovations. The idea management system can also be a sharing point
between users, market and organisations and thereby also work as an instrument for handling open innovation. Work by Bothos et al. Furthermore, Holtzblatt & Tierney investigates how social media
can influence the innovation process. Hrastinski reviews technologies used for open
innovation where one is idea management and points to certain implications in designing
these systems as increased customisation, attracting innovators, handling information overflow, and supporting the creative front end of innovation. The last implication is elaborated
and it is suggested that IT systems do not yet support the idea processes in the earliest stages.
Innovation literature particularly deals with front end innovation in a managerial perspective
and common for the fields which deals with idea management is recognition of a creative
ideation process which can be managed in order to reduce uncertainty in the front end of innovation and give stronger links to the innovation process of an organisation and thereby increase innovation capability. In the work of Saatcioglu and Vandenbosch,
ideas are viewed as movement and change, cognition and knowledge, and social interaction.
The management process is viewed as recognising the need for ideas, idea generation and
evaluation. This process is, with variations as seen in the latter, very common and agreed
upon in the literature on idea management. In this particular study, Saatcioglu and Vandenbosch shows how the idea management process can be approached in different
ways by certain manager archetypes found in the study. In this study the focus is on the managers and how their personality types influences the management of ideas and it is pointed out
that this understanding can support the way idea processes are managed and thereby the performance of management in general. In this study an IT system is not explicit and there is an
understanding in the literature that human idea management can exist on its own but an IT
idea management system cannot. As a consequence the aim with idea management systems is
to facilitate and support human idea management to lift innovation capability to a higher level
of performance.
Nilsson & Elg investigates idea management systems and proposes certain considerations to ensure successful implementation in order to increase innovation capability. The considerations are the purpose of the system, the role of information technology, the role of the
submitter in realising his/her idea and the way in which ideas are transformed to the product
development process. van Dijk & van den Ende considers organisational related factors
for managing creativity in order to transform creativity into practicable ideas as divided into
structural and cultural. Cultural factors considers factors like management support, willingness for change and a clear strategy where structural factors considers evaluation and reward
procedures and allocation of means for idea work. A proposed model is comprised of three
phases, idea extraction based in the cultural factors, idea landing based in both cultural and
structural factors, and idea follow-up based in structural factors. Flynn views the
idea generation process based on innovation theory as being types of innovations, innovation
as a process, and the innovation process closely related to ideas and creativity as a human resource, a process, and cultural. Flynn proposes the idea creation methodology and
the innovation funnel together with a software tool to support the managerial process of idea
creation and innovation. Boeddrich proposes a set of general and specific requirements of
idea management on the background of innovation models of organising the fuzzy front end
of innovation and draws on a case study of computer-aided idea management. Brem & Voigt builds upon a range of idea and innovation management models and frameworks and suggests an advanced framework of a front end innovation approach for an innovation strategy in
a frame of an integration of market pull and technology push mechanisms. Bakker
adds a political process aspect to the understanding of idea management on the background of
viewing creativity in relation to the organisation. Using the proposed model of the Creapolitical process, an empirical study of an idea management software tool is conducted.
There is a shared understanding in the literature of idea management of innovation as depending on employee cognition, creativity, and social interaction. The literature on idea management is closely related to literature on ideation where social interaction, creativity and decision making are essential topics. Caughlan & Johnson investigates idea management
processes on an individual and social level where capture, representation and development of
ideas are essential processes. Bailey & Horvitz investigates grass root innovation pipelines
within a company and how these can be structured and supported through idea management.
Selart & Johansen builds on a notion of creative thinking as being alternative-focused or
being value-focused which results in more or less number of ideas and of more or less quality.
In their study, the amount of ideas did not relate to the quality of ideas which has implications
for idea management systems. They conclude that value-focused thinking has more potential
for creating quality ideas which has implications for how ideas are evaluated in idea management systems. Sandström & Björk investigates the implementation of idea management
systems and points out the managerial implications of informal idea processes and types of
ideas acceptable for the idea management system. In another work of Björk & Magnusson,
they investigate the relationship between individual and group network connectivity and innovation idea quality based on a study of the data in an IT idea management system. It is recommended that social networks need managerial support while it is an open question whether
social networks and ideation processes should be formalised or not. In the work of Gish,
idea promoting initiatives are examined in a company, how they are designed and how they
are used in practice in idea work. In a discussion it is argued that an idea management systems
design not matching the practices of idea processes in the organisation may have difficulties
in being integrated in the organisation but at the same time a system which matches the practices may not challenge practices in order to increase innovation capability. The managerial
implication of the study is the interplay between the explicit processes and system and the
daily practices of idea work. The formalisation of idea processes should not be solely in focus
but the way to facilitate practices and challenge them. Gish finish the contribution by encouraging managers who implements idea promoting initiatives to be aware of and understand
the design and intent of the system on the one hand and the daily practices of the organisation
on the other hand. In a best practices study by Barczak they conclude that the results
concerning idea management in the front end of innovation are ambiguous but agreed as an
area in need of improved management.