Decentralized AI for collective governance

[Short general description]: Consensus is the open-sourced, decentralized artificial intelligence platform, powered by native cryptocurrency and built with the vision to improve the governance mechanisms at all levels of organizational structures: community, startup, NGO, enterprise, city, county or the entire country. Once fully realized, Consensus AI will be able to offer automated, data-driven solutions to the most complex problems of our collective co-existence by modelling the potential outcomes of proposed changes. At its basis, it will contain a set of principles, which will guide its development and evolution. 


[Main contribution proposal]: The goal of Consensus is to make governmental structures more effective and useful and ensuring a smooth transition from the current traditional structures to the ones the future will require, minimizing the transition phase difficulties and avoiding chaos in the process. Consensus Foundation aims to help advance the systems of collective governance that will meet the demands of the very near future societies, and to aid governments in adopting modern technologies for the greater good of humanity and to further help our collective evolution.


[Main problems tackled]: 

the Sentient blockchain network that includes verified nodes and enables running decentralized machine learning, 

the Research Platform with extended data collection and modelling capabilities, and 

the AI Advisor — a standalone system, constantly monitoring and learning from the incoming available data, that is used to make predictions. 

electronic identities - sentient will be the first decentralized global computer to include the strong digital ID linking, the basis for building the society of the future. 




1) Decentralized AI - an artificial intelligence layer that is hosted by the network participants and is training on data contributions from the network and other available external datasources

2) Data Privacy Using Homomorphic Encryption - the party performing machine learning generally seeks to reveal a pattern

3) Assembly Protection Service  - a container service, provided by the Assembly members, that holds the encryption keys to ensure data and model integrity

4) Synaptic core - the smart contract system that acts as a dispatcher service between the machine learning service requestors and the user nodes 

5) Process overview - The entity wishing to train the model, Requestor, sends the model specification — a general description of what the model being trained is to the network and sets a reward in Sen for the computation performed by the miners

6) Research platform - a system to enable conducting extended research, working with various data sources, including proprietary data acquired by the Foundation and contributed by the participants, data from open sources, public voting and opinion data gathered from the members of the network in exchange for Sen

7) Consensus AI advisor - certain entities to require customized research performed, going beyond training a single deep learning model or launching a single opinion poll. 

8) Development platform -  the platform is to open it to building governance applications using the Consensus infrastructure — algorithms, smart contract templates, reputation system, polling system, registries integrations.

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
4.50 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.00 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 5.00


Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
  • 1. Unknown people. No serious background information available.
  • 2. Partial information available, no relevant experience.
  • 3. Background information available, no relevant experience.
  • 4. Solid, relevant background and connections available.
  • 5. Solid, well known, experienced and well connected founders.
Team - Advisors:
What level of commitment, experience and connections do the advisers bring?
  • 1. No reputable advisors with relevant experience.
  • 2. Few advisors with little to no relevant experience.
  • 3. Advisers with relevant experience.
  • 4. Reputable advisors with relevant experience and connections.
  • 5. High profile highly experienced, well connected and committed advisors.
Product - Technology Layer:
Is the product innovative? Does it contribute to the blockchain ecosystem?
  • 1. No, the product is just a clone with no contribution.
  • 2. The product is a dapp with minimal interest and little contribution to the ecosystem.
  • 3. The product is a dapp, exchange or protocol addressing a real problem or need.
  • 4. Innovative product offering a solution to a high interest problem.
  • 5. Innovative protocol tackling critical problems of highest interest.
Product - Proof of concept:
Is the proof of concept comprehensive? Does it address a real problem or need?
  • 1. No, incoherent concept or no need for it.
  • 2. Difficult concept to understand, hardly any need or problem to solve.
  • 3. Clear concept which addresses a real problem.
  • 4. Clear, well thought concept which addresses a real problem of high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional proof of concept addressing a critical problem.
Product - MVP:
Has the concept been tested? Is there an MVP? How far is the launch?
  • 1. Untested concept.
  • 2. Initial tests, no MVP.
  • 3. MVP ready, Alpha launch.
  • 4. MVP ready, Beta launch.
  • 5. Fully working initial product.
Token Economics - Token utility:
Does the token have any utility? Is it a core function to the network?
  • 1. No, the token has no utility.
  • 2. Token has a limited, unclear utility.
  • 3. The token has some added, but not inherent value.
  • 4. The token is embedded in the network and has inherent value.
  • 5. The token has both inherent and added value and is embedded at the core of the network.
Token Economics - Network effect:
Are strong network effects built into the system? Are incentives aligned to encourage the growth of the network?
  • 1. No network effects built in.
  • 2. Minimal network effects, unclear incentives.
  • 3. Network effects and incentives present.
  • 4. Solid network effects with clear incentives due to inherent utility.
  • 5. Strong network effects, aligned incentives and high utility value.
Business Evaluation - Valuation:
Is the valuation reasonable ? Sufficient but not too high for the scope of the project?
  • 1. No, the valuation is ludicrous, the project could do with 1/10 of the sum.
  • 2. Valuation is higher than the project would need. Likely a money grab.
  • 3. Valuation is reasonable for the scope of the project.
  • 4. Valuation is modest for the caliber of the project.
  • 5. Valuation is impressively modest relative to the high caliber of the project.
Business Evaluation - Market potential:
What is the market potential? Does the project look like it could penetrate the market and conquer the world?
  • 1. No clear market potential.
  • 2. Limited market potential.
  • 3. Reasonable market and growth potential.
  • 4. Solid market and growth potential.
  • 5. Exceptional market and growth potential.
Business Evaluation - Competition:
Does the project have competition? How strong does it look relative to its competition?
  • 1. Awful position competing with many strong players.
  • 2. Weak position facing strong competition.
  • 3. Reasonable position facing strong competition.
  • 4. Solid position facing weak competition.
  • 5. Exceptional position, facing almost no competition.
Business Evaluation - Supply sold:
Does the team distribute a reasonable amount of the tokens so as to encourage create strong incentives and network effects?
  • 1. Negligible supply, greedy team.
  • 2. Small supply, poor incentives.
  • 3. Modest supply, weak incentives.
  • 4. Reasonable supply, responsible team.
  • 5. Large supply, solid inventive, committed team.
Business Evaluation - Vesting:
Does the team have a sufficient stake to have aligned incentives? Do they have a vesting schedule implemented?
  • 1. Large stake, no vesting.
  • 2. Small stakes, no vesting.
  • 3. Modest stakes, no vesting.
  • 4. Reasonable stakes, modest vesting.
  • 5. Solid stake, healthy vesting.
Hype and media presence:
Is the project present on social media and chats? Is there interest for it?
  • 1. No presence, negative image.
  • 2. Modest exposure and no interest.
  • 3. Reasonable exposure and modest interest.
  • 4. Solid exposure and high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional exposure, high interest and considerable hype.
Final Score


Oleg Gutsol
George Bordianu
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence
Artem Loginov
Product: AI, Governance
Julia Ivanova
Growth, Marketing


James Stewart
UK Government Digital Service Co-Founder
Yin Cao
Partner, CSO at Energy Blockchain Labs
Trent McConaghy
Founder, Ocean Protocol
April Rinne
Local and National Govenments Consultant
Alkarim Nasser
Product and Growth at Facebook
Yury Selivanov
Data, Algorithms, Scalability


Published at
Consensus Launches the Decentralized Governance Platform
1 year ago
Consensus AI Advisor: Trent McConaghy
1 year ago
Decentralized AI Platform for Collective Governance
1 year ago
SEN World Citizen Airdrop is Now Live!
1 year ago
SEN World Citizen Airdrop is Completed! Next Steps.
1 year ago
Trends in Electronic IDs and eIDs Integration with Consensus AI Network
1 year ago
Consensus AI World Citizen Airdrop Update
1 year ago
Analysis of Public Traffic Control Measures — How the City of Toronto Tries to Cut Traffic Jams on King Street
1 year ago