No. My comment was mostly “here is a related project in the space, check it out, maybe it it matches your requirements, maybe it is close enough, maybe that’s a good integration / collaboration opportunity”
I admit I did not interpret your requirements strictly, I was operating in “maybe close enough check it out” framework of the conversation. I also wasn’t aware that you know about Karma GAP already.
Philosophical comment: collaboration is good. Competition and free market is good. Just like Gitcoin has Giveth / CLR.fund / Octant as entities operating in the space, what are other entities in the Karma GAP space?
(feedback, updates, suggestions, comments, accountability, milestones, roadmap, donor notes)
I’m also wondering if there is enough money / scale / demand to hire specialist entities focused specifically of fact-checking, verification, assessments? Think in terms: “project verified by XYZ” acting as seal of approval, something to ensure the project is legit.
(and the entire rabbit hole of trusted 3rd parties, who is verifying the verifiers, who is evaluating the evaluators, I personally like these 
debates and if you are like me join the chat at t.me/ImpactEval)
EDIT / UPDATE:
You’ve inspired me to do “seal of approval” not by XYZ but IEF: t.me/ImpactEval/876
Need to figure out a suitable timing. And probably better to spread out across 2 weeks to have some notetaking / publishing / social media / grow time.
We are building in public, and we issued “request for comments” about impact evalution (cobenefits, externalities), join our chat at t.me/ImpactEval
Link
Link
Public goods + network effect + Metcalfe’s law + anti fragile = easier to feature request a new feature than to build from scratch, especially when you have historical data.
Yes. I agree with this sentiment. What do you think? Would you agree as well?