Evaluation

Evaluators have the opportunity to perform due diligence by assessing the whitepaper, team, tokenomics, total supply of mainnet tokens, roadmap and usage of funds of a project for 28 days after project submission. Polimec provides a dashboard allowing other participants to analyze the evaluation results. This mechanism fully informs participants and enables sharing of information during the decision-making process.

Evaluators signal that they expect a project to successfully complete the funding round by bonding PLMC. Once the required threshold of bonded PLMC for the evaluation is reached, which is 10% of the target funding amount denominated in USD, a project progresses to the funding round. Evaluations are still possible and will be considered after reaching the threshold, however, in a reward-adapted manner.

PLMC bonded for evaluations can still be used to participate in the funding round of the evaluated project as well as for voting, and are released at the end of the funding round.

Example

Example funding specifications:

• Target funding amount: USDT 1,000,000
• 10% (threshold) of target funding amount: USDT 100,000

Evaluators bonding PLMC during the evaluation period:

The 10% (threshold) of the target funding amount represents the minimum level of support required from evaluators for a project to progress to the funding round. This threshold requires evaluators to bond PLMC equal to 10% of the target funding amount. This approach prevents unrealistic or excessively high valuations, as well as participants getting stuck in an unsuccessful funding round without the economical means to deliver on their planned endeavors.

After 28 days, and given that the total USD amount of PLMC bonded by evaluators is USDT 200,000 (as shown in the example), and the total USD amount of PLMC required to meet the 10% evaluator bonding threshold is USDT 100,000, the project successfully progresses to the funding round.

The evaluation process includes gamification features, such as social credit building. Evaluators are scored based on past evaluations and can increase/decrease their scores to move up or down in the evaluator ranking.

Social credit building allows participants to follow evaluators they trust based on publicly available data. Social credit building generally narrows knowledge gaps, as one evaluator may emphasize technical aspects while another may focus more on the potential business case.

A visible track record of evaluators’ assessments further enhances accountability on the network. Furthermore, evaluators can link their pseudonymous identity credentials with social media accounts (e.g. Twitter, Telegram, Discord, Youtube, Github) to increase, and benefit from, their community engagement.