Free TON

Idea Management System Proposal [Finished]

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.


I would like to submit the proposal of software which is relevant for Idea Management System:

  • Taskade
    Taskade is a simpler way to create checklists, outlines, and notes. Whether you’re ticking off daily goals, managing a group project, or planning a holiday with friends — getting organized with Taskade is simple, friendly, and fun. Collaborate better by using Taskade to share your lists and notes. Work with team members to edit content together in real time, manage group tasks, and brainstorm live via chat. Taskade can be used by individuals or teams, at home or at work (or anywhere!) Automatic syncing means your lists and notes are always up to date on every device.
  • IdeasMine
    AL Consulting Group is a France software company that was founded in 2000, and offers a software title called IdeasMine. IdeasMine offers training via documentation, webinars, live online, and in person sessions. IdeasMine offers a free version, and free trial. IdeasMine is idea management software, and includes features such as activity dashboard, brainstorming, collaboration, creator tracking, idea ranking, project tracking, and status tracking. With regards to system requirements, IdeasMine is available as SaaS software. IdeasMine includes online support, business hours support, and 24/7 live support. Some alternative products to IdeasMine include OnSemble Employee Intranet, OrganisedFeedback, and Hansoft.
  • Innolytics
    Innolytics is a software suite that allows companies to collect and evaluate ideas from employees and implement them with the help of a structured process. The software can be created online immediately. It is permanently free of charge for up to 15 users. An unlimited number of users can be added in the paid versions. Modules such as knowledge management, technology management, and digital transformation are also available.
  • Co:tunity
    Co:tunity by Kairos Future is a cloud-based idea management software solution that helps improve enterprise innovation capabilities. Designed for small and midsize companies, Co:tunity offers collaboration, idea submission, review, and analytics functionalities within a powerful suite. This collaborative trendspotting and innovation platform also includes a variety of flexible and customizable features that enable users to gather, share, develop, and/or evaluate ideas and trends together with colleagues and customers. Important features of Co:tunity include competitive intelligence, role-based permissions, real-time notifications, best practices repository, trend analysis, campaign analysis, communication management, and more.
  • Spigit Idea Management
    Spigit is a leading idea management platform that enables users to crowdsource ideas for new products and markets in order to solve critical business challenges and streamline operational processes. Available globally with multi-language support, Spigit offers business crowdsourcing and innovation management within a suite and employs gamification strategies such as virtual currency, rewards, and game mechanics to drive user engagement. Key features include data visualization, crowd science algorithms, machine learning, automated idea graduation or processing, idea trading, and more.

Greetings, dear community!
My proposal for idea management systems:

1 Like

My proposal:

1 Like

Предложение должно быть


Our community can choose from a variety of turnkey time-tested solutions. Therefore, for an example we need to take a platform that can deliver interesting ideas to a wide audience.
I believe that the most suitable platform for the TON community would be a Medium-like forum. The header of such a forum can be divided into a dozen of categories, by which it will be easy to search for the category of interest. In order to cover all fields, you will not need to read all the articles; each field will have its own community that will advance interesting ideas for those who want to see the big picture.
Voting system:
Each user will be able to create articles to which each user can vote up or down. However, I propose a meritocracy: votes shall not be equal. For example, votes of users whose ideas have already been implemented will have double weight. If implemented twice - quadruple, etc. Also, the articles of such users will have, when creating, not 0 votes, but, for example, 10, 20, etc., depending on the success of the previous articles. Of course, under each article there will be a comment thread, for which you can also vote up or down.
From the votes up and down will be formed the user’s reputation. Reputation will have weight, which is a factor for the user’s vote. Top of the best articles will sort by the number of votes, it will be possible to look at different periods and select from them the best for implementation. All articles can be viewed in separate categories, or found in the search.

I have submitted my respnse for that contest before the deadline. but it is still on the moderation. What should I do?

Hi! Have you wrote on the forum? There was a few deadline extansions. No worries, there will be more contests soon!

Anyway, write me in PM. Let’s see

1 Like

The jury members have been selected. They have been and are continuing to review all submissions for the following contests:

Airdrop Mechanics 1
Developers Contest: Soft Majority Voting system
Validator Contest: DevOps tools
Decentralized Support I – Present Supporters
Decentralized Promotion
Idea Management System Contest

Please understand that this is not an easy task given that there are almost 200 submissions in total; however, the jury is determined to do their very best to cast all of their votes by the end of the day, Monday, June 22, 2020.

Thank you for your patience!


I just wanted to make sure and let everybody know that whoever had contest submissions ready to go during the extended time, but for technical reasons were unable to submit them, everything has been fixed. Your submissions were accepted and have gone off for jury review. Cheers!


Very nice work!!! :volcano: :volcano: :volcano:

1 Like