I can probably help with some of your questions, especially coming from experience.
“Isn’t decreasing GP’s share on the coordinape contrary to this? especially for those who really contribute as a GP.”
It will feel that way to the sectors that are currently getting the heaviest relative rewards. The trouble here is Goal of coordinape != Goal of this proposal.
As I understand it, the true objective of this proposal is to eliminate imbalances in reward allocation created by silos. The original intent of the silos was to make it easier to recognize the different sectors of contributors for the allocator, and equal weight was decided on for simplicity, though I warned at the time these imbalances would emerge.
In terms of the “Coordinape is complicated” I think links means as much about their UX being non-intuitive/ efficient and therefore friendly to repeated use. It’s not so much that it’s complex, it’s that it’s clunky.
Fame is definitely a problem with intent vs. truth in coordinape, The elements of things like sourcecred do a bit to answer this problem, but the tradeoff is they pervert incentives and create non-desirable behavior in an effort to game the system. This has been a pain point for our social systems, Current solutions are inadequate and therefore we use an imperfect proxy with the explicit understanding that the social expectation at the individual level is to uphold a voting method that recognizes and adjusts for this bias.
In terms of member levels, You touched on something that we’re having to consider as a DAO that is pretty unpleasant, but part of reality.
“Which is their only income”
I’ve been a champion of working for DAOs and living within these ecosystems since the beginning. I even did it for a while. However, I’ve discovered some truths about closed loop economies like BANK, and one of them is: If the Guest/member isn’t generating an equivalent or superior amount of buy pressure on Bank in that same time as it took to earn what they get, and they sell to live on, they create a negative feedback loop in the economic system that left unaddressed will kill the flow of that economy.
Getting back to the member level thing though, Just because the current system does the same encouragement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t adopt an upgrade when developed. The level system is long overdue for a ground level overhaul and it’s on the GSE to-do list. When that comes around, things should be simplified quite a bit as two independent systems of recognition (Membership/Contribution) are separated out of the single level system of today.
The give allocation requirement is a bit heavy handed and creates unnecessary admin overhead imo, because of the way that coordinape treats give allocation. I think awareness is a big reason for this.
Coordinape uses a system that treats unallocated give like burned tokens, which means if you allocate 10 give out of your thousand, those 10 give are treated with 10% weight/give. If you allocate any give at all, you’ve fully allocated. If you allocate no give, then your weight is equally distributed among the weights of those that did, essentially strengthening their votes weight. I’ve missed allocating in the last two rounds, despite it being on my to-do list, because I’ve been doing other things in the DAO. By enacting a limit like this, it would potentially negate all my other contributions because I missed a deadline. That seems to me against the spirit of the original intent of coordinape. In practice, It’s going to add admin overhead where there need be none, because even receiving at all is gated by signing up in the forms each month I think that is enough of a minimum activity barrier. If they contributed nothing of value, their peers will not reward it, and those who attempt to game the system in that way will walk away empty handed.
Awareness around that function I think could be better documented as a takeaway though
For the final point: That’s the short term symptom of the long term effects of the “Which is their only income” problem I mentioned earlier. We need to develop methods of compensation for those who must sell that keep our economic bandwidth from being eroded, and still meet the needs of the contributor.
I’d be curious how you guys think my solution for that issue looks, which is found here: An Idea to Improve Coordinape - #47 by AboveAverageJoe
Finally, I love the deep thought and responses, It’s encouraging to see these posts taken seriously.