@davoice321’s idea for smaller groups working together, this could enhence initiatives efficiency.
Points about risk of spamming/“low quality” content from @Maggie@DavidPerkins and @Thomm
I think a dedicated, periodic RFC to list eligible initiatives would make sense in that case.
People who post would know that their RFC/RIP would be going to be reviewed and debated for reward allocation. This would prevent spamming.
As Chico mentioned, participation is subjective. So if I were to judge participation, I would narrow this to a simple question :
“How is this bringing more positive exposure, how much and when?”.
More positive exposure leads to more use of the protocol, more new community members/devs with new ideas, more volume…
I should add that publicly engaging with other protocol is key in order to increase awereness and use of the protocol (like we saw yesterday on twitter with Daniele Sesta and ZeroDAO).
What I think are the main reasons for low engagement @Maggie:
RenVM exposure in the space is still low compared to other DeFi services
Writing/Reading in the forum is time consuming. A lot of people aren’t full time in crypto, so they spend most of their time catching up with twitter and Discord channels.
That’s also the reason why I liked @preston’s delegation idea, because the “no full time” people, yet very motivated by the project, could delegate their vote to a trusted full time community member.
The latest transition from telegram to discord is a good thing. I think that most succesfull crypto project are on Discord now (DeFi, NFTs…), so there are a lot of people over there and I guess this is the first step for more visibility/ more engagement.
RFC/RIP templates is definitely a good idea, anything that simples cumbersome tasks is a good idea. Uniformization should improve the forum user experience for both writters and readers.
@Arviee, an idea, we could differentiate financial incentives and unsollicited initiatives
- Financial incentive : Incentive with known objective and bounty, voted through classic governance process (RFC, RIP, vote)
- Unsollicited work : speaks for itself I guess, something that’s out but was unsolicited.
- Both could be rewarded through the same process (see below) when fulfilled.
Considering what has been said in the thread, here is an idea to put this into perspective before a reward wave is allocated :
Compile eligible community members/groups work in a RFC, with a description of their work (maybe someone/group could be in charge for this eligible compilation)
For unsollicited intitiatives - Anwser the question “How is this initiative bringing more positive exposure, how much and when?”
For sollicited incentives - Answer the question “Did it fulfilled the specifications of this financial incentive (cf RIP XXX)?”
Debate among the community (the work deserves reward or not, how much, someone’s work is missing in the RFC)
Wrap this into a RIP
Vote for fund allocation (using delegated vote eventually)
Repeat this process periodically (to be determined)
To conclude I’m in favor for such kind of proposal. But above all, I’m in favor for making this the fun way, the “work seriously but don’t take yourself too seriously” kind of things. In my experience, it’s always what works best
I would propose to introduce different money pools for
memes
RFC
RIP
These pools will drain over time and be refilled by the CF ever 4 weeks. This could be used as a spam protection.
Each pool gets a different amount and can be adjusted by a community.
But we need a counsel of people who are willing to take care of the organization like:
Doing the actual payout: RFC, RIP, meme contest winner
Organizing the meme contest (tweeting, discord announcement, introduce kind of voting)
Create a website with all the information: What we incentivise, how it works, x rewards for z work package
So first we need to find people who will be in charge to organize all these things. People should raise their hands if they would like to be part of this counsel. Then we vote for 5 people. The vote should be repeated every 3? months to give the chance to replace people. This counsel should also be funded via the CF. Each member should receive 500$? per week.
The counsel will get a multisig wallet with the total amount of all the money pools to do the payouts but only for one month. Each month the multisig wallet will be refilled by the CF and the 5 counsel members will get paid.
Guys, if we go through with this, spam protection is not a concern! It will be handled by forum moderators. If needed, extra rules will be introduced via voting. Simple as that.
Away from any concerns about “spam”, I insist that we should experiment with the evolution of RFCs without initial restrictions. I find the desire to reach as many people as possible and limit work within the community as contradictory.
For the rest, I am convinced that the commitment to the community will be based on two fundamental pillars, the social and the economic.
-The economic is the easiest and involves direct and high financial incentives where possible. No “thanks” in my opinion but I may be wrong. What I do think is that someone who receives an incentive of 100 usd when at least their investment is valued today at 100,000 usd, will not give much importance to that 0.01% of their investment. The rewards should be respectable in number and on actual achievements in my opinion.
-The social is complex and involves the psychological, ideological (we are all mostly anti-Trad Fi and its consequences). In my opinion, generating a sense of belonging (a complex task) is the other great aspect that determines the success of the community. That whoever arrives does not leave, that he / she finds a project without parallel (as all of us who participate). Several points in favor:
-Belonging to the narrative installed in the present (interoperability)
-Zero inflation. Complete token issuance.
-A unique utility token in the ecosystem, which generates rewards in BTC etc.
In marketing, we must rescue the epic of the dark knights. In an environment of children’s colors, the visual seriousness of REN in general is a great differential aspect.
With regards to any suggestion of voting incentives, I’d suggest we should be looking at things the other way around and disincentivising voter apathy. One option would be to impose a vote decay mechanism, whereby a DNO’s voting power will decay gradually over time unless they vote regularly.
Thoughts? Given the general level of concern over voting levels at the minute, perhaps this might be worth its own RFC?
Really interesting posts in here - plenty of good points.
There is definitely more serious community engagement around the treasury subject now.
One thing I’m not fully clear on now is, whats the next step? Summary and then informal voting in this channel or new RFC with voting or directly RIP?
I’m definitely in favour of kicking off asap with smaller amounts, not only to incentivize community members but also to start seeing live examples of how things could work. Plenty of things can be ironed out as we move forward, everything doesnt need to be perfect from start, especially with smaller amounts
