Grape Research Tool

Feature Request (inspired by Zoolana’s Project DD Package)

A tool to help make people’s life easier by compiling materials needed for research and sharing analysis in a standardized way.


  1. On Grape Dashboard, to build a new page oriented to show the activities of the research community (people who do their proper due diligence on new projects before investing in them) in a standardized way;

    All links:
    Website – link
    Whitepaper – link
    Twitter – link
    Discord – link
    Medium – link
    Telegram – link
    YouTube – link

    Where to start:
    First Step: title – link – estimated time to read
    Second Step: title – link – estimated time to read
    Third Step: title – link – estimated time to read
    Optional Step: title – link – estimated time to read
    Total estimated time to do a decent deep dive into the project – estimated time to read

    Researcher assessment on:
    Overview – comment – score
    Team – comment – score
    Tokenomics – comment – score
    Roadmap – comment – score
    Investors – comment – score

  2. Those who have the Research Grape Token or Gorillas/above status can :

    2.1. Create a New Project Research with the standard above;

    2.2. Complement an existing project research by adding their own Researcher assessment ;

  3. Gibbons and above can :

    3.1. Like the R esearcher assessment s;

    3.1. Star the R esearch Project;

  4. Every one will be able to see the projects researched and their assessments independent of membership. The idea is to make e very new and complementary research a NFT;


  1. Researchers will have an easy and convenient way to share their research;

  2. The most promising projects will likely have reviews from different researchers;

  3. The community will be empowered with an easy and practical way to choose the best projects and the best research;

  4. The organization will be able to reward its researchers based on a broad lecke of key performance indicators. For example, number of projects created per researcher, number of complementary reviews per researcher, reviews most loved by the community, etc;

  5. Grape Protocol will gain more awareness from the general public because we are offering free curated alpha in a practical and elegant way;

Next steps :

  1. Evaluate the foundations of this proposal by the DAO;

  2. Evaluate the possibility and cost of this tool with the developers team;

  3. Create a bounty if the evaluation of the possibility and cost are accepted by the DAO;

  4. Use the tool and publicize it on social networks;


  1. This tool is complementary to RipTide’s one on discord notifications that target more time-sensitive research;

  2. May will be needed to deposit Grape before actions like create , complement or like/star a research so to avoid spam;

Tool draft:


I also have submited on Grape Development Bounties: Development Specification Form.


Hi @pontes, great proposal, I should have replied sooner on discourse, we obvs did discuss in this in DM’s, and more recently on Friday just gone this bounty formed part of the discussion of the researchers weekly call.

The first thing I’d say is what the proposal aims to do is top notch. Taking the unstructured data provided in comments/ and or feedback from researchers and other community members that’s being shared in access channels and making it into more of structured data repository is quality, and the scoring lends Itself to the tool being a Solana Project IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes type project.

There are a few things which I’d raise though, first I’d say is this kind of assement feedback is something which I think now is closer to what the Dean’s List group of communtiy members are doing with their feedback and reporting on projects.

I’d also note it was something that the Gaming Council were doing to a degree in excell/google sheets around reviewing gaming projects but stuggled with due to weight of information and maintaining of information, the feeling there was that it would take either a large number of people spending time on it or a few dedicated full-timers spend more considerable amounts of time on it, so just something labour instensive is what I’d flag.

Another concern I have is the different levels of information projects provide and how they provide this information, ie lack of consistency of information being provided between projects where differing milestones could be delivered at different times making it difficult to compare like with like. Not impossible and not saying just because its difficult shouldn’t be done.

Lastly the final concern id raise is the magnitude of this task. I’ve expience in database management, and development from a feature request and feature testing point of view and I think from a base case that this would be an epic undertaking to develop, which would need much more detailed scoping out of potentitally phased development and/or a series of bounties assocaited. Now the developers may have a better idea of the work involve in setting up such a system and maybe I’m off base with this concern but still one which I’d raise.


Our goal here is to increase the value of the grape protocol so I ask everyone to kindly judge this proposal as to whether or not it would benefit that goal.

I would like to thank you (@TheRipTyde, @kirk , @DeanMachine and @Dim_Selk ) for giving me your attention, reading and commenting on the initial draft. Thanks to you I was able to simplify and make this proposal clearer.

Thank you @TheRipTyde for commenting on this one too.
I’ll comment while I’m reading.

Not only that, but also providing a uniform framework for project review and a means of sharing opinions about risks and returns, as well as educating/encouraging our members to initiate their own analysis and share their own opinions.

The IMDB analogy fits well.

I think I know what you mean. In the case of the feedback group, each member tests, analyzes and shares his opinion on how to increase the quality of the project. It’s people sharing opinions through discord.
I would say this tool is like discord, but the structure created here is to standardize project analysis and opinion sharing. This tool with the appropriate changes in the structure could also be used by the feedback group.

I understand what you’re talking about.
In the case of the GC, they had many projects on the list to study, but few people to research. The tool doesn’t change that.
The tool assists members by providing a standard framework for reviewing projects and sharing opinions, as well as enabling project and survey scoring.

I can see what you’re pointing to.
The tool standardizes what to analyze. Therefore, if the project does not have information on a particular attribute, the researcher’s score will probably be lower on that attribute. If the project changes, removes or adds something, the researcher can complement the research itself.

Creating this tool is not a simple task, but it is one of the ways I see it to increase the value of the grape protocol in the long term. Therefore, I would also like to budget this tool with the developers team.


Not the art but the idea behind it
Bringing clarity to the DYOR process with our NFT review-to-earn site Alpha Audits
looks cool