🧰

CTB Market Research☍

List out of existing solutions

Competition	Features	Interaction document	Comment	Why it failed or Limitaitons	ㅤ
Algora - https://console.algora.io/bounties	Bounties	X	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
OnlyDust - https://app.onlydust.com/discover	Open source contributions	X ( will create video )	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
Openspot - https://heyopenspot.com/	Talent profiles	ㅤ	Have to use the VPN from USA in order to access it	ㅤ	ㅤ
app.wonderverse.xyz	Bounties	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
https://guild.xyz/greenwill	Reputation	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ

List out the prior solutions

Competition	Features	Why it Failed or Limitations	CONTRIBO
SourceCred	Used a modified PageRank algorithm to calculate contribution value Discord plugins for social recognition Created "Cred" scores and "Grain" tokens for rewards Community-driven valuation of contributions	Algorithm was too complex for non-technical users to understand Discord plugins created a "popularity contest" rather than true value measurement Invisible work problem - work that wasn't visible wasn't properly rewarded No clear boundaries in permissionless organization led to "side quests” Failed to develop governance mechanisms for adjusting algorithm parameters	Focus on treating contributions as property with recognized ownership More accessible algorithm with better visualization tools Objective-oriented projects with clear deliverables Better balance between social and substantive metrics
Coordinape	DAO-focused reward distribution system Members receive fixed "GIVE" tokens to allocate to other contributors Peer-to-peer allocation system	Can reward "the optics of working" rather than actual work No property rights for contributions - just a distribution mechanism Relies heavily on subjective peer assessment Limited to within-group allocation	Algorithmic assessment beyond peer allocation Property rights for contributions that persist over time Cross-project value recognition Objective impact measurement
Dework	Bounty platform for web3 contributors Profile building for contributors Task-based rewards	Limited to predefined tasks No ongoing value tracking after completion Traditional bounty model limitations No property rights framework	Contributions tracked and valued beyond completion Property rights model with lasting ownership Network effects of contributions Value grows as work is used/built upon
Only Dust	Platform connecting open source contributors with projects Social network for contributors Incentive system for contributions	Doesn't focus on "contributions as property” More traditional rewards model Less emphasis on intersubjective value	Value determined by actual usage and impact Network-based value calculation Long-term benefit alignment
Gitcoin	Grants platform with quadratic funding Public goods funding focus Bounties for specific tasks	Primarily a funding mechanism, not contribution tracking Limited to specified bounties and grants No property rights for contributions Community voting can be manipulated	Ongoing value tracking beyond initial funding Algorithmic value determination Cross-project impact measurement
Radicle	Decentralized GitHub alternative Code collaboration platform Open source focus	More focused on collaboration than contribution valuation Limited value tracking mechanisms No property rights framework	Explicit value tracking Property rights for contributions Focus on contribution economics
Thrive	DAO contribution tracking platform Task management with rewards Community-driven recognition system Reputation building for contributors	More focused on task completion than ongoing value Limited cross-project capabilities Traditional reward models without true property rights Less emphasis on algorithmic valuation of contributions	Contribution as property approach versus task-based rewards Intersubjective algorithmic valuation rather than task completion Network effects built into the core valuation mechanism
Govrn	https://github.com/Govrn-HQ/govrn-monorepo	ㅤ	ㅤ
MyZscore.ai	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ

Why Previous Models Failed

Algorithm Complexity: Systems like SourceCred became too complex for users to understand or govern effectively.

Popularity Over Impact: Social recognition systems often rewarded visibility rather than substantive contributions.

Lack of Visualization Tools: Failed to create interfaces that made contribution networks understandable.

No Property Rights: Treated contributions as labor deserving compensation rather than property with lasting value.

Limited Scope: Often focused on either bounties, grants, or social recognition without a comprehensive approach.

Why CONTRIBO Will Succeed Where Others Failed

Previous platforms treated contributions primarily as labor deserving compensation. CONTRIBO fundamentally changes this paradigm where contributions become digital property with ongoing rights.

This creates alignment between contributors and projects, as contributors directly benefit from the long-term success of their work. When a contribution continues to provide value months or years later, the contributor still benefits. No other platform has successfully implemented this.

CTB Market Research☍

List out of existing solutions

Competition	Features	Interaction document	Comment	Why it failed or Limitaitons	ㅤ
Algora - https://console.algora.io/bounties	Bounties	X	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
OnlyDust - https://app.onlydust.com/discover	Open source contributions	X ( will create video )	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
Openspot - https://heyopenspot.com/	Talent profiles	ㅤ	Have to use the VPN from USA in order to access it	ㅤ	ㅤ
app.wonderverse.xyz	Bounties	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ
https://guild.xyz/greenwill	Reputation	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ

List out the prior solutions

Competition	Features	Why it Failed or Limitations	CONTRIBO
SourceCred	Used a modified PageRank algorithm to calculate contribution value Discord plugins for social recognition Created "Cred" scores and "Grain" tokens for rewards Community-driven valuation of contributions	Algorithm was too complex for non-technical users to understand Discord plugins created a "popularity contest" rather than true value measurement Invisible work problem - work that wasn't visible wasn't properly rewarded No clear boundaries in permissionless organization led to "side quests” Failed to develop governance mechanisms for adjusting algorithm parameters	Focus on treating contributions as property with recognized ownership More accessible algorithm with better visualization tools Objective-oriented projects with clear deliverables Better balance between social and substantive metrics
Coordinape	DAO-focused reward distribution system Members receive fixed "GIVE" tokens to allocate to other contributors Peer-to-peer allocation system	Can reward "the optics of working" rather than actual work No property rights for contributions - just a distribution mechanism Relies heavily on subjective peer assessment Limited to within-group allocation	Algorithmic assessment beyond peer allocation Property rights for contributions that persist over time Cross-project value recognition Objective impact measurement
Dework	Bounty platform for web3 contributors Profile building for contributors Task-based rewards	Limited to predefined tasks No ongoing value tracking after completion Traditional bounty model limitations No property rights framework	Contributions tracked and valued beyond completion Property rights model with lasting ownership Network effects of contributions Value grows as work is used/built upon
Only Dust	Platform connecting open source contributors with projects Social network for contributors Incentive system for contributions	Doesn't focus on "contributions as property” More traditional rewards model Less emphasis on intersubjective value	Value determined by actual usage and impact Network-based value calculation Long-term benefit alignment
Gitcoin	Grants platform with quadratic funding Public goods funding focus Bounties for specific tasks	Primarily a funding mechanism, not contribution tracking Limited to specified bounties and grants No property rights for contributions Community voting can be manipulated	Ongoing value tracking beyond initial funding Algorithmic value determination Cross-project impact measurement
Radicle	Decentralized GitHub alternative Code collaboration platform Open source focus	More focused on collaboration than contribution valuation Limited value tracking mechanisms No property rights framework	Explicit value tracking Property rights for contributions Focus on contribution economics
Thrive	DAO contribution tracking platform Task management with rewards Community-driven recognition system Reputation building for contributors	More focused on task completion than ongoing value Limited cross-project capabilities Traditional reward models without true property rights Less emphasis on algorithmic valuation of contributions	Contribution as property approach versus task-based rewards Intersubjective algorithmic valuation rather than task completion Network effects built into the core valuation mechanism
Govrn	https://github.com/Govrn-HQ/govrn-monorepo	ㅤ	ㅤ
MyZscore.ai	ㅤ	ㅤ	ㅤ

Why Previous Models Failed

Algorithm Complexity: Systems like SourceCred became too complex for users to understand or govern effectively.

Popularity Over Impact: Social recognition systems often rewarded visibility rather than substantive contributions.

Lack of Visualization Tools: Failed to create interfaces that made contribution networks understandable.

No Property Rights: Treated contributions as labor deserving compensation rather than property with lasting value.

Limited Scope: Often focused on either bounties, grants, or social recognition without a comprehensive approach.

Why CONTRIBO Will Succeed Where Others Failed

Previous platforms treated contributions primarily as labor deserving compensation. CONTRIBO fundamentally changes this paradigm where contributions become digital property with ongoing rights.

This creates alignment between contributors and projects, as contributors directly benefit from the long-term success of their work. When a contribution continues to provide value months or years later, the contributor still benefits. No other platform has successfully implemented this.