Information Session Q&A

Question: Is an industry partner mandatory when applying for a Community Sprint, and is there a matchmaking platform or directory to find partners?

Answer:

• An industry partner is not mandatory for academic applicants. A single academic institution may apply if it can demonstrate the expertise needed to address the selected challenge.
• Whether an industry partner strengthens an application depends on the project idea and how the applicant demonstrates its ability to deliver the proposed work. No general assessment bonus for including an industry partner was specified.
• A matchmaking system had been planned but had not been established.

For the partner requirements of each project format, please refer to Annex 2: Project Formats.

Follow-up question: Is there at least a contact directory or another way for newcomers to reach potential partners?

Answer:

• The BioBlock team offered to circulate an expression of interest to the entire Stakeholder Advisory Board or wider community.
• The team could not offer individual matchmaking with a selected partner; the information would need to be shared with everyone.
• No partner directory was provided during the exchange. This does not establish that no directory exists.

Question: Do all subprojects need to be built directly on blockchain technology?

Answer:

• No, not every subproject needs to implement blockchain technology itself. The FAIR AI tool, for example, can support the BioBlock platform without being built directly on blockchain.
• Core blockchain prototype development is primarily covered by CP3. Other functions, such as negotiation through smart contracts, have blockchain-related requirements.
• All projects should contribute to the overall BioBlock platform. Participants are also expected to show willingness to participate in the decentralized Community of Practice.

Follow-up question: For the metadata challenge, Challenge 4, is the objective to generate metadata using blockchain, or to make metadata usable in a blockchain environment?

Answer:

• The participant suggested that metadata could be used within a blockchain environment without blockchain itself generating the metadata.
• The presenter explicitly agreed with this distinction.

Question: Does the Principal Investigator (PI) need extensive prior experience in blockchain technology, or can broader knowledge applicable to the proposed work be sufficient?

Answer:

• The Great Council will assess expertise against the specific tasks and deliverables of the proposal.
• Applicants must demonstrate that the work will be carried out by people with the relevant expertise. Developing blockchain technology requires appropriate blockchain expertise; other tasks require the expertise relevant to those tasks.
• No universal minimum number of years of blockchain experience or separate PI-specific threshold was stated.

Question: How do new members or users join the decentralized Community of Practice (particularly in the context of Community Project 2)?

Answer:

• The respondent linked the question to the earlier discussion about contacting users and explained how the community is developing.
• CP1 established conceptual foundations, CP3–CP5 develop the technology layer, and CP2 develops the governance layer and connects the trust layers.
• The community is expected to grow through participating stakeholders and new Community Projects funded through the challenges.
• BioBlock is progressively moving from the more centralized arrangements needed to establish the initiative towards a decentralized Community of Practice.

Interested in joining the community? You can contact the BioBlock Management Team at any time at info@bioblock-community.org to express your interest in participating.

Question: Can a project reimburse travel expenses for external community members invited to a workshop at the applicant’s institution to provide feedback?

Answer:

• Travel costs were described as eligible budget items in principle.
• However, the specific arrangement of paying external participants’ travel expenses requires clarification with and approval by PtJ.

Follow-up question: Does this also cover participants travelling to our workshop, rather than our own project team travelling elsewhere?

Answer:

• The applicant proposed including the costs in the application subject to further approval if the proposal progressed. The presenter acknowledged this conditional understanding.
• This was not an approval of the costs themselves.
• Another participant reported that similar reimbursements had previously been possible but had become more difficult. They recommended asking PtJ specifically about its current approach and providing a clear justification.
• The proposed reimbursement arrangement should be explicitly clarified with PtJ before treating the costs as accepted.

For the funding conditions of each project format, please refer to Annex 2: Project Formats.

The presenters provided the following additional guidance during the discussion:

Alignment with the Challenge:

• Applicants should carefully explain how their proposal addresses the selected challenge and its specifications.
• An otherwise strong proposal may still be unsuitable if it is not sufficiently aligned with the challenge.

Number of Funded Projects:

• The organisers expect to fund one project per challenge, explaining that they do not intend to establish competing Community Projects addressing the same challenge.
• This expresses the intended selection approach and should not be read as a guarantee that a project will be funded under every challenge.

Budgets & Overheads:

• The stated partner limits include up to €150,000 per partner for Community Sprints and up to €250,000 for an academic partner in a Practice Sprint.
• The higher academic limit does not apply to non-academic partners.
• The maximum total budget for the selected challenge must always be respected, alongside the applicable partner limit.
• All maximum budgets include overheads; overheads cannot be added on top of these caps.
• Applicants with questions about budget preparation were invited to contact the BioBlock team.

For details on project formats, partner limits, funding rates and overheads, please refer to Annex 2: Project Formats.

Legal Seat:

• The presentation stated that direct funding recipients must have a legal seat in Germany.
• Organisations without a legal seat in Germany were described as potentially participating as unfunded Associated Partners or as Subcontractors. The presenter also stated that Subcontractors would not receive rights to use the project results.
• This information came from the presentation rather than a separate audience question.

Question: Will the presentation slides be shared with attendees?

Answer:

• Yes, the presenter committed to emailing the slides to all registered participants.
• Publication on the website was mentioned as a possibility, rather than a confirmed publication commitment.
• No specific circulation or publication date was given.

Additional information:

• The organisers also said they would try to publish answers to the session’s questions on the website and invited participants to contact them with further questions.

This question was submitted by email.

Question: Should a proposal cover all expected deliverables listed for the selected challenge? Is there a minimum number of deliverables that must be addressed, or are some deliverables given higher priority?

Answer:

• The listed expected deliverables serve as KPIs that are available to all applicants and form part of the basis on which reviewers will evaluate the submitted proposals.
• To ensure a fair and transparent evaluation process, we cannot specify a minimum number of deliverables that must be addressed or assign priorities to individual KPIs.

These questions were submitted by email.

Question: Which blockchain platform does CP3 BeeFAIRChain use for the consortium chain? Is it EVM-based with Solidity contracts, as in bloxberg?

Question: How are data offers, purchases, usage terms and licences modelled in the smart contracts? Are the terms fixed or parameterised?

Answer:

• BioBlock is using Hyperledger Besu for its permissioned consortium blockchain.
• The technical development of the BioBlock platform is still at an early stage. Implementation details that have not yet been made publicly available cannot be shared individually with applicants.

These questions were submitted by email.

Question: How are roles such as buyer, seller, generator and authority assigned and checked in CP3 BeeFAIRChain?

Question: Which DID method and credential formats does the DID/SSI adapter in CP5 BioBlock-bloxberg use? Could it also identify software agents acting on behalf of participants?

Answer:

• Concepts for platform governance, including roles and responsibilities, are currently undergoing validation and cannot yet be disclosed.
• These concepts are expected to be finalised and made available by the anticipated start of the projects funded through the current Call for Proposals.
• Technical development is still at an early stage. The same level of technical information is to be provided to all applicants; implementation details that have not yet been made publicly available cannot be shared individually.

These questions were submitted by email.

Question: Is there an API, SDK or test network that projects funded through the second Call for Proposals could use? Will the CP3 BeeFAIRChain code be open source?

Question: Can the CP5 BioBlock-bloxberg governance blocks for proposals, voting and milestone releases be reused by other projects, for example for escalation decisions or community votes on parameters?

Question: Which CP5 components, such as the adapter, governance blocks or SDK, will remain available and maintained after the project ends in June 2027?

Answer:

• Projects funded through the current Call for Proposals will need to build upon functionalities and components that are still under development.
• All Community Projects are expected to design their solutions to ensure accessibility, interoperability and compatibility with other developments within the BioBlock ecosystem.
• Close technical coordination between current and future projects will be essential throughout each project lifecycle.
• Implementation details that have not yet been made publicly available cannot be shared individually with applicants.

This question was submitted by email.

Question: What is the planned release timeline for CP3 BeeFAIRChain up to its project end in December 2027, and when is a fully functional BioBlock platform prototype expected?

Answer:

• According to the current project timeline, a fully functional prototype of the BioBlock platform is not expected until Q3 2027.
• Due to the funding structure, delays in the overall funding process and the limited duration of the current BioBlock Innovation Community funding phase until the end of 2028, several technical developments must proceed in parallel rather than sequentially.
• Projects funded through the current Call for Proposals will therefore need to work with components and functionalities that are still under development and coordinate closely with the other Community Projects.

Additional guidance provided in response to the questions submitted by email.

Question: How should applicants plan their proposals while platform components are still being developed, and can they obtain individual technical consultations with the development teams?

Answer:

• The published Challenge description and its expected deliverables should serve as the common reference for preparing proposals.
• Technical assumptions, dependencies and proposed integration approaches can be addressed within the project concept.
• Project execution should be planned to be agile and responsive to synergies and complementarity among projects.
• To ensure transparency and equal access to information, BioBlock aims to provide the same level of technical information to all applicants. Individual technical consultations with the development teams cannot be offered, and implementation details that have not yet been made publicly available cannot be shared.

For correspondence regarding BioBlock, please use info@bioblock-community.org.