explorer/Web3privacynowplatform/scoringmodel/Product features/Readme.md

# Product features

Here we prototype potential product features within our "l2beat for privacy" platform. All they are based on market survey available [here]((https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JWpAsGL10UTsVeuIVbouzUxRjaSPUAamxcbFljXuUWE/edit?usp=sharing))

![alt text](https://github.com/web3privacy/web3privacy/blob/main/Web3privacynowplatform/Staticobjects/Platform%20MVP%20components.png?raw=true)

# Validity track 

"yes/no" applicability like if "docs" exist or not.
_Benefit_: easy to source manually & empower scoring model with the links.
_Downside_: the existence of Git repo or docs doesn't guarantee the state of privacy within a certain solution.

**Approach**: "validity track" serves as an MVP of privacy analytics, and challenges a culture of open-source delivery.

_Validity examples_ (yes, no):
- Github repo
- Docs
- Public team
- Third-party audit

This could be broken down into 100% (4 yes, each - 25%; where 2 no & 2 yes = 50%)

![alt text](https://github.com/web3privacy/web3privacy/blob/main/Web3privacynowplatform/Staticobjects/Scoring%20x%20Data%20Aggregation%20sync.png?raw=true)
   
## 101 educational materials.

| _Benefit_ | _Downside_ | **Approach** | _Selected 101s_ |
| ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| significantly upgrades DYOR & flags main misconceptions about privacy execution plus 1 guide could serve all audiences | too many content pieces to write or assemble to encompass the whole privacy services & nuances spectrum (needed to be broken down into delivery phases) | select essential educational materials for the first audiences (example: crypto, but not privacy native instead of "non-crypto" first served) | privacy tech vocabulary |
| | | make 101 modular (block system) + composable (to be reused in other guides) | privacy data leakages 101 |
| | | | transaction traceability 101 (the basics on Etherscan example) |
| | | | web3 comms 101 (with a focus on misleading comms that create an obscure understanding of the tech/product) |

The scoring model could consist of passive & active parts. When passive means what could be automated or req no subjective gaze, active - for personal consideration (research).
   
## Checklists (example: trusted sources list).

| _Benefit_ | _Downside_ | **Approach** | _Checklist MVP_ |
| ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| serves as a self-check navigation within the complex audit stream (and a predecessor of an actionable database) | there will be always something missing from the list | pick a direction (like "trusted sources") | **Storage**: What user information is stored? (username, IP address, last connection, wallets associate, etc) -> the less the better |
| | | write down it as an actionable plan | **Infra**: Number of nodes/servers/ -> the larger the footprint the best privacy |
| | | help a person spend less time on data aggregation (the easiest to follow checklist - the better) | **Signup**: no email or tel number for signup -> the less data the better |
| | | | **Traction**: number of people using it -> the more the better (with examples) |
| | | | **Public comms**: simplified socials analysis (for a negative sentiment) |
| | | | **Product-readiness**: test-net, mainnet; date of the release. |

This is a mix of objective metrics & subjective takeaways (like an old product release can be a negative sentiment for privacy & vice versa). Case studies will help to empower these assumptions.
If we will collect good case studies lib -> it will help people to have market benchmarks for every step of scoring system.

# Academy (content from case studies to third-party services to check net data, leakages).

| _Benefit_ | _Downside_ | **Approach** | 
| ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | 
| this will be the backbone of our platform in the future that will bridge the gap between lack of privacy-centric education, lack of third-party services to check-up solutions & poor transparency on behalf of privacy-devs. | usually takes too long time to deliver & many different contributors (should be simplified via tracks like Web3 Privacy 101). | Stick with privacy 101 (basics). | 
| | | Brake down the most crucial knowledge into simplified blocks. |
| | | Create a simplified & actionable "lecture framework" for guest lectors. |
| | | Invite lectors within a micro-learning format. |
| | | Cover basic 10 lectures via "Web3 privacy 101 introduction". |
| | | Deploy via videos + texts > test them out. |

## _Long 2do list (filtered out product features)_

| **Validity** | **Education track 101** | **Checklists** | **Additional content** | **Automation (beta)** |
| ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| * documentation: exists/missing | forkability x privacy 101  | trusted sources checklist (&/or a list) | case studies when solutions actively embed privacy education within the workflow | "DERP"-alike tool for the future privacy script-based "check-up" product releases |
| 3rd party list (yes/no) from security audit agencies to independent security engineers (+their reputation 101 in later versions) | security audits 101 (basics)  | web3 open-source checklist (soft screening like whitepaper (yes/no), docs (yes/no) etc) | List of external third-party resources in a Wiki (for those, who like to make extra effort -> influence micro-services creation) | web3-native IP-checker for a beta version |
| website checklist (1-2-3-4-5..., yes/no validity) | web3 privacy 101 (focus on a misleading comms like blockchain security equals privacy) | different self-check recommendations by security audits, white hackers as a supplement (how would you test product privacy) | case-studies (privacy matching): protocol = transparent, but use-cases = private (like Ethereum) | web3-native privacy features checker to be R&D (what could be automated & coded for QA-automation) |
| code audit (yes/no). Case studies (how those audits could look alike with active links) | web3 comms 101 (with a focus on misleading comms that create an obscure understanding of the tech/product) | GitHub basic score (flag system could be a part of the second product release) | future: privacy features comparison within solutions (creating a comprehensive privacy market metrics set) ||
|  | privacy tech vocabulary | a checklist of when you need a "tech" person help to attest privacy features & when not (with a focus on a second scenario) | case studies when solutions actively embed privacy education within the workflow || 
|  | privacy data leakages 101 |  | "net usage stats" services guide for the end user (but with a focus on empowering product managers to incorporate third-party tools to self-check their products & publicly report on their privacy features) | |
|  | transaction traceability 101 (the basics on Etherscan example) |  | "privacy stack" enhancement prototyping (1 solution + 1 solution = privacy "2x" (like Session messenger + dVPN) ||
|  | web3 comms 101 (with a focus on misleading comms that create an obscure understanding of the tech/product) |  | examples of how products enhance privacy creatively (like a game mentioned by Obscuro) -> potential market benchmarks ||
|  | open source 101 (short version)  |  | part of the wiki: web3 privacy products biases (in relation to privacy features x user experience) ||
|  | social recovery 101 |  ||
|  | missing 3rd party audit potential risks 101 |  ||
|  | simplified media analysis 101 |  ||
|  | privacy in ZK 101 |  ||
|  | "attacks" (threats) 101 |  ||
|  | transaction traceability 101 (the basics on Etherscan example) |  ||
|  | web3 docs 101 (basic description in relation to privacy) |  ||
|  | pubkey, network key, viewing key etc 101 |  ||
|  | "Anti-features" 101 |  ||
|  | did 101 (with a focus on the linkage between different data types) |  ||

## _DYOR section_
* useful links (like dVPN studies in a DYOR section)

## _Future releases_
* in the future: collab with a security audit company to create a new docs audit service description when a third party will attest privacy features of the initial idea x tooling description