The global jury is created to evaluate contest submissions, conditions of which are the achievement of economic indicators and ensuring the functionality of a product developed on smart contracts.
Both an economic component of a product and efficiency of its program code should be evaluated. To do this, the jury must have persons of different competences, including highly qualified economists, as well as highly qualified developers of smart contract software code.
Stages of product development based on smart contracts
Contests for creating a product based on smart contracts are held in 5 stages:
- development of a program design, including its economic justification;
- primary (test) product version that provides functionality;
- smart contracts development;
- interfaces development;
- security audit.
Functionality of the product being developed is assessed at all stages.
The quality of smart contracts software code being developed is assessed at stages 3 and 4. Depending on development features, it is also allowed to assess the quality of smart contracts software code at the 2nd stage.
Regulation for assessing submissions
The criteria for quality submission in order of their rating are:
- product features meet contest requirements;
- product economic indicators have been achieved (if they are specified in the contest);
- the quality of smart contract code.
Each criterion is assessed simultaneously and independently. Assessment of submissions must be carried out in accordance with the “Submissions assessment” rules set out below. Final rating for each submission is the average of all the scores.
Running a contest
Decision to run a contest is made by the initial group. It needs to get 50% + 1 votes of the initial group members.
Quality filter. The duplicate, sub-par, incomplete, or inappropriate submissions should be rejected by jurors.
Technology understanding. Jurors who vote in the contest must have a solid understanding of the technology. Those jurors who are unsure of their judging should choose “Abstain”.
Jurors must honestly and objectively evaluate all the submissions presented. Otherwise, biased juror may be disqualified and his/her scores may be forfeited.
Feedback. Jurors must provide valuable feedback on each submission justifying their decision.
The requirements can be clarified in a contest.
Assessing of economic and software parts of submissions is carried out independently in accordance with the rules set out here.
Assessing the submissions is considered legitimate if at least 50 % + 1 of jurors have cast their votes, be it “Accept”, “Reject” or “Abstain”, to the submission with the least number of votes.
Example. If a group consists of 16 jurors, then at least 9 of them must assess the submissions.
If the number of jurors who have voted “Accept” or “Reject” (altogether) will not exceed 3 (three), the contest submissions assessment is not considered legitimate and must be repeated from scratch.
Scale. Jurors of each group must assess a submission on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 is the highest score, 1 is the lowest score) or vote as “abstain” or “reject”.
The “abstain” vote means that a juror is not qualified or eligible to assess the submission. Such a vote is not taken into account when a rating score is calculated. Each juror should strive not to use the “abstain” vote.
Example. If a submission was assessed by 3 jurors as follows: “10, 2, abstain”, then the resulting score will be equal to (10 + 2) / 2 = 6.
The “reject” vote means that a submission does not meet at least one of the contest conditions. “Reject” is not related to a score, but is taken into account when calculating a rating of the submission.
Example. If a submission was assessed as follows: “3, 3, reject” then its resulting score will be equal to (3 + 3) / 3 = 2.
If a number of “reject” is at least 50 % + 1 of a total number of voted jurors, then the submission cannot be qualified for a prize.
Example. If a submission was assessed as follows: “6, abstain, reject, reject”, the resulting score will be equal to 6 / 3 = 2.
If a juror considers that submission is useless, although it meets contest requirements, he/she must notify its author and clearly state in review a reason for low rating.
Any conflict situation that occurs when calculating a resulting submission score should be resolved at Jury Global weekly call.
These statements can be clarified in relation to a specific contest.
A Free TON SG selects jurors according to its internal rules, and also forms a group of SC jurors based on the DevEx SG jurors list. Each juror evaluates the submissions in part of his/her competence only:
- A Free TON SG jurors. They should assess functionality of a software product.
- The DevEx SG smart contract jurors. They should assess the quality of smart contract software code.
In the future, jurors will be selected through contests.
Jurors are rewarded for assessing the contest submissions.
By default, the amount of funds allocated for each jury group should be 5 % of the total amount actually paid to winners (not from the amount originally stated in a contest). Amount of funds allocated to a juror is calculated by the following formula:
Components of the formula:
— amount of funds allocated to i-juror;
— average cost of assessing one submission;
— number of submissions assessed by i-juror (minus “abstain”).
Average cost of assessing one submission is calculated by the following formula:
Components of the formula:
— amount of funds allocated to jurors;
— total number of ratings (minus “abstain”) given by all jurors of the group. It is calculated by the following formula:
Components of the formula:
— number of jurors who rated contest;
— number of contest submissions;
— total number of “abstain” votes of all the jurors.
The more jurors participate in assessment of works, the more correctly winners are determined. An increase in the number of jurors leads to a decrease in i-juror’s award, since the total amount of funds allocated for assessing submissions is fixed.
An amount equal to 1 % of the prize fund will be allocated to both Sub-governances and divided among the initial members who participated in organizing the contest. Principle of dividing these funds should be carried out in accordance with the rules in force within Sub-governance.
Conflict situations should be resolved on weekly SC Jury Global calls.