This doesn’t incentivize voting; rather, it incentivizes contributing ideas and discussion, which can in turn lead to voting. This is also different from the discussion about incentivizing innovation, since that seems to talk more about rewarding implementation after discussion has taken place. When Maker implemented it, their community engagement seemed to go up; compared to Maker, though, for us this will translate into vastly more voting engagement as well, with gasless voting.
It’s a nice idea.
For my own curiosity, have you much experience with the MakerDAO forum, and the influence of SourceCred? I would be keen to talk to someone who has been in another DAO, and seen the SourceCred system yielding benefit first-hand.
I have been with Maker since shortly before Black Thursday. The SourceCred system works quite well, I think; they implemented it after Black Thursday, if I recall correctly, so they’ve had it a while. I’ve used the system first-hand, and I can say from experience (and there’s data around their site somewhere, I think) that it drove up participation significantly; I’d love to hear from others that are also with MakerDAO, if there are any.
Will support this. With so many defi options out there, Bancor really needs to out innovate others to stand out.
I like this idea, particularly i think we have a lot of different ideas about how to solve the same problems. their model could help us begin to narrow down the answers and take action on things other than LM/Whitelisting.
I created a thread over on Maker’s forum, and some wonderful pointers were given to some useful threads. Have a look!
These were the objective metrics the sourcecred campaign were able to increase over a 3 month period with 5000$/Week Payouts. I’d recommend looking through the whole article.
|Metric||% Change (6/1 - 9/1)|
|Daily Engaged Users||+70%|
|Daily Active Users (DAU) / Monthly Active Users (MAU)||+ 2%|
It looks like it didn’t really draw in new people, so much as get a fair bit more engagement out of the ones that were already there. That’s what I think we should focus on first, since a small but engaged community is easier to work with and build up than a large disengaged one; it’s momentum.
I believe Uni has one that allows them vote priority on a released roadmap. 3 months isn’t a long enough time to build momentum, something more persistent would be great, if it’s unused, then no payout. Win-win.
Out of this we should also make incentivise hobby bancor devs to build out a working code that can easily be attached/accepted into the current repo. (In-house Bancor devs can still have ultimate say). Everyone can place something on a PPT or give an idea, making it happen is a lot harder. We will need additional firepower to actualise these ideas.
Ideate > business case > build > vote to keep/remove > repeat.
This is a great idea. This seems related to the voter engagement thread. Hopefully voter rewards can turn Bancor holders into engaged voters while SourceCred compensation turns engaged voters into core contributors. At some point we tie in marketing to turn uninformed crypto holders into Bancor holders and the pipeline is fully functional.
edit: I just read this comment from a recommended Maker thread.
I’m relatively new here but I was surprised at how much DAI I received last month. Personally, I think SourceCred overpays casual community members like me. I like posting here and I’m not gonna turn down free money but I’d probably contribute exactly the same way even if I received 10 DAI a month or 100 DAI a month. Small amounts as a thank you gesture are sometimes better. There is a point where the community growth and participation becomes inorganic and it becomes tempting to post without adding real value, just to earn DAI.
The kind of behavior this person describes is something I see constantly on r/CryptoCurrency for moons for example (don’t @ me, it’s just reddit). I think the reward to governance far outweighs the potential downside of this behavior, but I was wondering @ccc if you have seen bad behavior like this on Maker? Posts just to “mine” DAI?
I haven’t noticed any, but honestly the better people to ask would be their mods; possibly the reason I haven’t seen it is because they’re good at their jobs.
I’m not in community calls/chats (I really wish participation in those didn’t require a phone number, but I will not get one) so I don’t know if this has gone anywhere upstairs. Has this been talked about at all?
It was not discussed on the last call, but I don’t know about the previous calls because I was not on them.
Thanks for bumping this as it prompted me to finally read through the MKR thread [Informal Poll] - Increasing the SourceCred payments you shared. A comment from Eliju on 4/15 really stood out to me:
As a word of context, I believe the aim of SourceCred is to incentivize quality governance participation that is ‘unbacked’ by MKR in one’s wallet. It’s supposed to encourage new/potential members of the community to go through oftentimes-tiring process of familiarizing oneself with the forum.
If we introduce SC, it should attract more intellectual capital to Bancor. However, we would need to be careful for the reason mentioned by MakerMan on 4/14:
SC rewards probably are not going to get us more implementations, and likely only gets Maker more ideas that it can’t easily implement. Which is a reason ‘not’ to increase SC rewards, and to take that money to hire more smart contract coders, debuggers, auditors, etc.
I’d argue that SC would be a useful tool to have in the tool box to attract intellectual capital, and for that reason alone I’d support a proposal.
Separately, based on Maker’s experience we should explore how to incentivize/attract doers who could augment the core team, and bring the best of our ideas to life in a timely manner.
This is a real good point on the idea side. We are not magically creating more developers so any great stand out ideas would get put down the pipeline probably creating a real congested schedule for Devs. I think this should be implemented but can probably wait until the team has more time to focus inwards on the DAO, since they have previously mentioned the DAO being a primary focus of the project.
On a sidenote, could we create more developers ? I know projects like RAD (Radicle) and “Keepers” aswell as many other open source, decentralized projects are focusing on the ability to “buy code”.
Yes. I think this falls into the “nice to have” bucket, but definitely not the wish list.
That is a very good question. Nate stated that we had some bounties for data analytics/science work at the end of the last call. Could we offer bounties for code? (Sorry for the brief thread hijack @ccc )
No worries mate, developers are always relevant to any feature discussion. Totally in favor of code bounties.