BioDigital Certification

BioDigital Certification™ is a process for producers to self-certify their product claims. 

Wineries can use BioDigital Certification to certify wines and grape production for diverse claims, such as:

1. organic

2. biodynamic

3. vegan

4. DO, AOC, IG

5. fair-trade

6. carbon neutral

7. C2C

8. single-vineyard

9. natural

BioDigital Certification combines three elements:

• An unambiguous discrete description of the claim requirements (i.e. what are the rules and requirements for Organic wine certification)

• A list of digital artefacts that wineries publish on OpenVino to demonstrate compliance with these requirements

• A process for others to challenge the wineries BioDigital certification claim, using the Kleros.io decentralized arbitration service. 

Upon successful completion of BioDigital Certification, producers receive a digital badge for their claim. 

This document describes in detail how BioDigital Certification works.

What is BioDigital Certification, and why do we need it?

1. Many many claims by wineries

2. Too many green labels - not enough space

3. confusing consumers with non-certified labels

What problems does BioDigitial Certification solve?

1. mis-aligned incentives

2. easy to cheat

3. expensive

4. ineffective

5. time periods

6. different standards for different destinations = $$

What Artefacts do wineries need to Certify?

1. documents —> forms?

2. analisys —> water and soil

3. Time

4. grapes v wine

What are the legal issues?

1. is this the time to provoke?

2. team up with certifier? - how does the business work?

Types of BioDigital Certifications:

1. organic

2. biodynamic

3. vegan

4. DO, AOC, IG

5. fair-trade

6. carbon neutral

7. C2C

8. single-vineyard

9. natural?

BioDigital Certification Components

Data Publication on OpenVino.Exchange

Data Validation with Bloock

Certification Badges with Kleros KEY POINTS

What is BioDigital ORGANIC Self-Certification, and why do we need it?

1. Many many claims by wineries

2. Too many green labels - not enough space

3. confusing consumers with non-certified labels

1. USER INTERVIEW. Understanding the users and the pain.

   1. What problem are you solving?
      Organic certification process for the benefit of the market overall.

• Persona

• Values and motivation (What does the user care about? What motivates him/her?)

• Influences (What influences the user? What do they read before making decisions)

• Pain Points  (what does the user find frustrating? Which activity demands much time, money or effort? What are the existing solutions and why are they insufficient?)

Who are the users?  

Organic Wine Producers (WINERIES)

• Maal Wines

• Alberto Belote

• Alpamanta

• Dante Robino

• Laura CatenaChadwick

• South African Producer

Wine Influencers

• Rudá Serra

• Madeleine Puckette - WineFolly

• Amanda Barnes

• Noma 

• Kika Zanzi

Wine Buyers (here we must make a difference between regular consumers and distributors/resellers)

• Vinoteca BCN

• Manel Sarasa

• Sergio

• Doug Richard

• Brett

• Pia

1. Certificators

2. Regulators

• OIA

• OIA Independent Auditor

• INV

• SENASA or INTA

• Consejo Regulador (ARG)
  
  
  

  Open

  

Interview aspects:

• How do customers rank the problem you’re trying to solve?
  -

• Who is the competition? (Existing Alternatives)?
  Certificators manage who is certified or not.

• How do customers solve these problems today?
  Those who must comply (producers) follow the process without an option and those who buy pay the "price".

• Who has the pain? (Customer Segments)
  Consumers: Specially producers (inefficient process that costs too much money. Incentives in the wrong place. Bad audits by certificators) and drinkers (price of the certification process affects the final price, uncertainty of the real organic quality).

• Is this a viable customer segment?

d.TEMPLATE + PROBLEM RANKING

Open

e. TEMPLATE FINAL VIEW

f. QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS (in general):

1. What is the biggest challenge or disadvantage you face with organic certification?

2. Why do you produce organic wine?

3. Why do you prefer to drink organic wines

4. Do you think organic certification is an effective way to validate sustainable practices?

5. Do you think wineries cheat?

6. Do you think Certifiers facilitate cheating to their own advantage?

7. Do you think being certified really reflects 100% organic?

8. Would you drink/buy organic wines without certification if they winery claims they are organic? Why would you trust one and not the other?

Problems to mention to each user for ranking:

• Winery: 

  • Expensive as certification

  • Easy to cheat by competence

  • Affects the price of the wine

• Buyers:

  • More expensive than non-certified wines

  • Hard to find

  • Not sure if authentically organic?

• Influencers:

  • Hard to trust a promoted certifier

  • Not so known field

  • Hard to combine both niches

• Regulators

• Certifiers

  • RRHH

  • False documents

KLEROS FEEDBACK:

Evaluate what is the pain that each user has, and the motivations that each user would have according the provided solution.

1) WINERY: Why would the winery manager want to biodigitaly self certificate instead of continuing with the regular system?

They would save time and money in the certification process and have an improvement and constant curation of the badge. It would help them get money in case of being challenged. It would decrease the amount of fake badges. 

It is important to know that most of the people in the wine industry ought to be educated in crypto to have a better understanding of the process, how to properly interact and its advantages.

2) Consumers: Advantage of know what you drink. 

Get an educational advantage of how the wine is made and why its organic because of the open source self certification process. Could open up to a kind of "niche" to be part of.

Being part of a cool community, regarding wine, organic sustainable products and crypto.

2) Wine Bounty Hunters: possible persona we hadn't considered yet. 

Becoming a community curator, coming from the wine/organic word to crypto or the other way around, challenging wineries that dont seem to comply with the organic requirements.

Recognition and money can come from such a "job" or pOsition. 

Influencers can adapt to this position or vice versa as well.

Make it attractive for this possible future persona.

--------

SESSION 3: PROTOTYPING

Notes a mantener en mente:

• Make sure you have a problem worth solving. Define the smallest possible solution. Reduce customer risk.

• DOES OUR SOLUTION SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

• Show the solution to customers. Show a prototype.

PROTOTYPING

1) We have to do different prototypes for the different users. Because they have different needs.

2) Sketch the splash page. 

Simple sketch.

One button for each user persona, WITH “WE HELP YOU DO THIS”.

Example of prototype process:

What we have to do:

3) Later on: SHOW IT TO THE USER PERSONA: Does it solve the problem?

--------

Mikes conclusions on DRAFT of Interfaz:

The OPENVINO badge should be seen in Kleros page.

Inside of the badge, 3 key points should appear: on what does it mean that badge and the different ones that exist (organic, vegan, fair trade, amongst others), on what informations wineries would have to provide to show they're "organic" (in this case) and on challenging.

Redirecting to OpenVino at some point.

OpenVino would as well have the badge on its platform with the 3 alternatives. Specially developed in the second one on how to apply to self certification. 

When one presses on the button of CHALLENGE, there should be information on the time available to do so. Hours available to challenge an specific winery, if that time is done, and when it starts again (annually).

INCUBATOR SESSION 4) UX/UI EXPERIENCE

The activity divided itself in 3 areas.

1. PROBLEM EXPLORATION

2. JOBS TO BE DONE

3. TASK ANALYSIS

1) PROBLEM EXPLORATION

In this exercise we were guided through the different problems that the Project would try to solve and through what perspective it should be addressed. In the end, the starting motivations of the project as seen in early stages of the incubator were met and reconfirmed.

CONCLUSION:

It was noted that: The project would have a double challenge, and that is educational. Dealing with non-crypto native people specially.

It will be improtant to have in mind to make the information available specially friendly and understandable. Both in how to become organic, what it means, how to know it, what to upload, and also educating both self-certifiers and challengers (basically all users) on how the protocol works and how it improves the present system.

Educational in: organic cert + crypto interfaz.

It was suggested to keep the interviews with wine wine producers to understand their present experiences and present relationship with Web3. How they already interact with Blockchain. Test the difficulties that can come.

2) JOBS TO BE DONE.

It was explored through this exercises of analysis to understand what "jobs" would the different users have to enact, having in mind their incentives. It was concluded, again, that even though there are over 4 or 5 users (depending on the way we classify them), it is two jobs that interest us the most and that are reciprocate: WINERIES (self-certificating) and CHALLENGERS (any user can be one, with economic/moral/educational incentives).

MAIN "JOBS" and their importance:

3) TASK ANALYSIS:

From this analysis, we tried to view the different perspectives and priorities of users. How would users use the product? How would they interact with it? What do they need to do to achieve the result?

The outcome, as the first flow, combines the two main users as their process is combined.

What we took in mind from Plinio's feedback is how important it will be the Notification System, specially for wineries (informing the users of probation time). Status updates, being dynamic.

Do VALIDATION USER RESEARCH (Maal wines?). USER TESTING.

It was suggested to take a look at the Kleros Design System, from the very beginning, to keep consistency. Also, regarding research methods, to check Nielsen Norman Group.

We can duplicate design for the process to be made: https://www.figma.com/community/file/999852250110186964

22/11

On MECHANISM DESIGN.

Thoughts and strategies on how challenges would be addressed by users, using game theory. How to work with each users incentives. 

Not every user or player makes rational decisions.

Take into account that the possibility of replaying can modify users actions and incentives (one tends to change if its the last of almost last chance to "play").

It was already stated how protocol density = utility (the value the protocol brings)/ attack surface (weaknesses taken to attack). Beyond the ration attackers we must also take into account the Griefing factors = attack/cost to attacker. Similar as well to a troll that might be interested in damaging.

It is important to figure out what possible attack strategies might the challenges and wineries get in order to prevent damages to the users and also to the protocol/transactions.

• "Lazy Strategy": for "lazy" jurors, tuning parameters = put up arbitration fees and down the deposits required (in Kleros).

• "Challengers Dilemma": it is harder to incentivize challengers than jurors.
  Strategic for the project to accept a % of incorrect submissions. Not a perfect system to incentivize people.

• Problems to be careful: Blockchain fails - censorship - reorgs - ORACLE MANIPULATION (we need to be careful on how they might be focus of attack). For ex: using uniswap to know a fixed cryptocurrency price.

MAKE THE COMMUNITY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT CHALLENGING! MAKE THEM WANT TO INTERACT. MAKE IT FUN, EDUCATIONAL, PART OF A NICHE, DYNAMIC.

• Who are the challengers? Anyone can challenge, most likely any user:

  • Other wineries

  • Consumers

  • Influencers

  • Regulators/Certifiers (their role can be recreated this way as well and even become influencers or viceversa).

  • Any of the above could become "bounty hunters"

  • People not from the wine industry but from Web3 industry

  • Trolls

• What are the incentives to challenge?

  • Make money

  • Curate the organic market

  • Educational, fun

  • Interacting with the community

  • Fame 

  • Rivalry

  • Malicious

QUESTIONS TO BARE IN MIND:

• How many times could a winery be challenged during its pending time? More than once? Is there a max? How long will the pending time be?

• What is no one challenges the winery, it gets the organic badge but then it is evident to everyone that it is not organic? Will it still be possible to challenge? At a higher stake?

• Idea to let the challengers have profiles so they can interact with the community? Or as well be anons to avoid tension with wineries?

• Being a juror could be an attractive position to certifiers/regulators, if not being challengers.

In kleros curate, one can be challenged many times, but one at a time. Just one deposit at a time. Still, the system can be modified, like with the possibility of having parallel challenges. Or have the winery make one deposit and having it divided by the amount of challenger. Or letting wineries be challenged even after probation but for more money.

Important to decide the amount of money of the deposit.

-----

MINUTA REUNIÓN CON MIKE/MILI 24/11

D) BIODIGITAL SELF CERTIFICATION - INCUBATOR

Comentamos los temas referidos a la última reunión del lunes 22/11 sobre Mechanism design, referido a game theory.

-  Mike concluyó: que se puedan hacer varios challenges a la vez. Por ende, la winery solo hace 1 staking. Coloca solamente un botín, y al final del probation time, se divide en función de los challengers ganadores. Recordemos que cada uno deberá poner también su dinero.

Ej: La bodega coloca 5 mil dólares en stake. Si aparece un challenger y este gana, se lleva en total 10 (su dinero y el dinero de la bodega). Si gana la bodega, esta se lleva el dinero. Si hay tres challengers y ganan los 3, cada uno recupera su dinero y un tercio de los 5 mil cada uno. 

Ahora, si solo ganan 2 de esos tres, los dos ganadores recuperan su dinero + los 5 mil dividido entre 2.  El challenger que perdió pierde su dinero, y va a la bodega (entendí bien esto último Mike? ¿Qué se hace con el dinero del challenger que pierde? Lo mandamos a la bodega o a los demás challengers? DETERMINAR

- A Mike le gustaría que el tiempo de probation para desafiar se vaya reduciendo.

- Buscar hacer un leverage del dinero mientras está en stake. 

Coordinar una reunión con Jordi y Mark para ver este tema.

Que cuando las partes hagan el staking cada una, se pueda hacer con ese dienro una inversión de poco tiempo y muy poco riesgo (1% o 2%), por ejemplo.
En la primer reunión de Kleros incubator en Lisboa, Jordi surgió con una posible idea que podríamos debatir retomar, u otras.

Mili coordinará una reunión al efecto.

- MIKE PROPONE: hoy la idea es que staking que realizan las bodegas sea en ETH. PERO. Idealmente se buscaría que las bodegas puedan realizar el stake con token representativos de su propio vino. 
Interrogante: En caso de que gane el challenger y se quede con los tokens de la bodega, el valor de los mismos se verá negativamente afectado por haber perdido el challenge de orgánico.
- La próxima reunión será de Smart Contract Security. Mike quiere que se sume a esta reunión Marcos Lozada (por auditorías de los smart contracts) via Zoom. Mike también quiere estar presente.

-  BADGES PROVISORIOS? (ante el periodo de tres años requerido para tener la certificación orgánica)

Se pensó en presentar un Badge provisorio para los 3 años que quieren las bodegas para certificarse orgánicas, y otro badge definitivo para las que ya hayan pasado por este proceso.

Mike quiere reformular y cambiar esta idea, para que el badge que presenten todas las bodegas sea un badge declarativo que se pueda usar desde el año 0.

Tema a considerar es que los Mercados de USA, EU, JPN, si piden los 3 años, a lo cual podría darse un extra badge o complemento?

Idea de un badge declarativo de que la cosecha de ese año es orgánica, y si ya cuentan con los 3 años anteriores dar el complemento internacional, o al llegar al tercer año se de el complemento.

Es decir, un solo badge declarativo orgánico, y dependiendo el caso particular el complemento?

Repensar este tema para dejarlo en claro.

- HABLAR CON ENTIDADES REGULADORAS PARA QUE ACEPTEN EL BADGE DE KLEROS ORGANIC.
Mike hablará con SENASA antes de fin de año.

Cómo coordinamos el contaco con las entidades de otros países?

---

2/12

CALL CON CLEMENT OPENVINO 2/12

DISCUSS CHALLENGING

IDEAS OF STAKING THE BOUNTY AND THE CHALLENGERS

Mikes idea:

Kleros have arbitration fees, are not on what’s on stake. 

Only the challenger pays the arbitration fees.

Theres money that goes to openvino as well from the challenges.

Mike asks if we can do bounty staking in ETH only for the winery  or if it can be eth+wine token?

If a winery is tokenizing their wines, being able to add half of the stake in their own tokens of wine. But if they dont have it tokenized they’d do all in eth.

AND

Could they allow multiple challengers during the 30 days? If so, if one already wins, does it end the time to challenge? And all that challenged get a part of the bounty. As soon as tone wins, the process ends. Its more efficient. 

According to clement then you can only do one challenge with multiple parties adding to it. less arbitration fees. 

At first is better not to try to extract anything. After it grows with more users to do so.

Mike takes his point that its better to at the beginning make it simpler. The point of mike of having multiple challengers within the same time periods that we want to keep the challenge period of 30d and dont want to increase the money put into a challenge in case its more than one. If the winery is challenged twice, double the stake hurts more to the winery. To reduce trolling, the challenges should be private. There should be a max amount of challengers that could  have a winery? 

By allowing us to do a mixed bounty, it would also be a way to indirectly create some revenue in the 30day period without risking the funds. it would create a liquidity pool during that time, owned by openvino.

By staking their own tokens at half of the bounty, this reduces the financial cost of the product. It also means that if the challenger wins, it’s probably going to have  negative effect on the token for a while. It creates an interesting case there.

Clement says its a little bit weird to use an asset that could lose value if i lose. Youre winning the product youre challenging against. Says that maybe it could be used an openvino token.

Mike wants to incentivize people that challenge and reward wineries that work properly.

Clement says that the reason of the challenge should only be put in the beginning and can’t be put more after.

You can’t add evidence not an appeal.

Clement insists in just one chllagener.

Then add challengers and what to do with revenue in the future.

To determine with Mike.

-----

This was Mikes proposal, up discussed: 

“Staking proposals and arguments…

Let us explain how we would like to do staking and challenges for BioDigital Certification badges, 

and argue why we think these are good ideas, and then you can tell us if these are viable or not.

———————————

The winery claims a BioDigital certification badge (in this example: Organic).

To do this, on OpenVino, we will have three columns:

1. What does the organic badge mean (a clear declaration of the 27 requirements for organic certification)

2. What are the wineries 27 artifacts… (a match for how the winery justifies that it is in fact organic)

3. And a staking/challenge button/dashboard.

The winery stakes a bounty for 30 days, which challengers can try to claim. (for example = equivalent value of 1 ETH)

Challengers must stake a certain amount of funds and present evidence. (for example: 0.3 ETH)

The Kleros jury looks at the winery artifacts and the challengers evidence and decides who is right. 

If nobody challenges the winery within 30 days, the bounty is returned and the winery receives the organic badge.

If challenges are presented, and the Kleros jury votes in favor of the winery, the winery bounty is returned and 1/3 of the challenger staking is rewarded to the winery, 1/3 is rewarded to Kleros, and 1/3 is rewarded to OpenVino.

If the Kleros jury votes in favor of the challenger, the winery bounty is awarded to the challenger, and 

1/3 of the challenger staking is returned to the challenger, 1/3 is rewarded to Kleros, and 1/3 to OpenVino.

Questions:

1. Could the winery bounty staking be a pair of ETH + Wine Tokens? (in the case of wineries issuing their own wine tokens)

or only ETH in the case that wineries do not have wine tokens?

2. Can we allow multiple challengers to stake and present evidence simultaneously? If at least ONE challenger wins with the Kleros jury, then the winery bounty is paid out, proportionally to all of the challengers. In other words, if there are 6 challengers, the bounty would be paid out 6 ways. The challenger staking would be returned to each challenger as before (1/3 x 3)

The reason we think allowing multiple simultaneous challenges is a good idea is because:

1. multiple challenges = multiple revenue generated for Kleros and OpenVino…some challengers might simply pile on to a first challenger

2. if one challenger wins, we still collect revenue, but don’t have to invoke the jury for remaining challengers (no double jeopardy)

3. Because it is disadvantageous for the first challenger to have additional challengers pile on (because the bounty will be diluted) the challengers will NOT want to leak information about their challenge evidence (thus reducing trolling)

4. At some point, if there are too many challengers, the potential diluted bounty claim will be less than the 2/3 loss of the challenger staking…this will eliminate the desire to have too many challengers.

The reason we think allowing wine tokens + ETH pairs as winery bounty staking is because:

1. This token pair can easily be added to the OpenVino token liquidity pool, but during the 30 day staking period, this liquidity pool is owned by OpenVino - so this generates commission revenues from token sales during this period.

2. By staking a wineries own tokens, this reduces the financial cost for the winery, increase the desireabillity for wine tokenization, and places a winery in the position of staking their own token future on certification…understanding that a loss to a Kleros jury (because the winery is cheating) will probable result in a drop in the token valuation.”

These were the final conclusions:

CLEMENT’S FEEDBACK

Q1: 

Not a good idea to have wineries stake a token that will lose value In case of losing the challenge. Bad for motivating challengers. At the beginning, its better to make it simpler and just stake on ETH. Consider: having wineries stake with MTB.

Q2: 

Insists one just one challenger and having the probation time done.

Still, we got to middle ground: for 30 days the winery can be challenged, but the amount of challengers + their evidence is not shown until the end of the 30 days. Then we give the Winneries 5 days to reply and give more evidence to jurors. Then jurors have X time to give a verdict on whether who wins.

If there is only one challenger, and the winery wins, it gets its money back + the money of the challenger. If the challenger wins, viceversa.

The challenger is the one that always pays the arbitration fees.

If there are plenty of challengers, by the end of the verdicts of the jurors, if the winery wins them all, but one, it is already considered to have lost the challenge. Then, the winery cant get certified and loses the bounty. The bounty is divided amongst those challengers who were right. 

The stake put by the challengers who did not win (even though the winery lost to others), goes to whom? Make this question to Clement.

Ask Clement: Amount of time needed by jurors to make a decision after the probation time is done/after a dispute arrives and what happens with the challenger that lost agains a winery that was proven wrong by other challenger. + The identity of the challengers will remain anonymous? How about the possibility of having it be public so they can build a “reputation”?.

-----

UPDATE 15/12

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION:

On the process of getting the first stage of documents: Tobias Serrano and Franco Bastias. 

Will have, before 24/12, the documents for UE, USA and Brasil.

After this, will start working for the rest of the countries. 

This information will then have to be coded by our developers into the platform. It is important that by 7/1/2022 after the smart contract meetings, that we have a clear description of what needs to be added and loaded into the platform.

2. ON CHALLENGES:

It was decided that for demo day, the project would adapt to the curator system and then use the following months to develop the possibility of having multiple challengers.

3. ANIMATIONS:

Lucas Scala was hired to make the animated video regarding the project. 

Before beginnings of january, we have to create a dialogue explaining how the project works and also the dialogue that it would imply.

Locutor, dialogue, locutor, dialogue, locutor.

When we decide on the script, it will be sent to be said by people hired from FIBERTEL.

Budget will be decided on January.

4. INV/INTA/SENASA

Mike is handling meetings with regulations for future recognition of the project.

On the multiple challengers questions to Clement, mentioned above: it takes a week for jurors to resolve disputes. The challenger that loses only loses the fees. They remain anon.

5. USERS INTERVIEW.

In hands of Mica.

No wineries will be uploaded by demo day except for OpenVino.

---

NOTES ON THE LEGAL WORKSHOP

Good practices: being as decentralized as possible, but its ok not to be so much at early stages. Kleros is 100% decentralized, but also run through a cooperative in France.

Take into account frontends: where the data is stored, regarding jurisdiction.

Governance: as much as possible by the community.

Have a contingency plan, a plan b, insurance.

Intention is important for legal voids.

DONT MAKE PROMISES. DONT MAKE SPECULATIVE TOKENS. DONT TALK ABOUT FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITIES. THIS TO AVOID PROBLEMS WITH SEC.

Qs to Mike: have you thought about the risk of whales? And about the intrinsic nature of the governance tokens so they are not seen as securities?

Airdrops: good idea to keep the community engaged. But they have to be a surprise to avoid problems with SEC.

When wapping a DAO, being anon is very important.

COALA MODEL LAW: compliance entity on chain (Primavera de Fillipi), for the incorporation of a DAO that is, by default, compliant.