I suggested cohort-sized allocations in this post, and got some feedback around sybil attacks and the fact that it was still pretty complicated.
In the end, I convinced myself that multiple DAO-wide circles, no matter how we sliced them, end up creating artificial barriers for measuring contribution. With our current system, you’ll NEVER be able to say that a Guest Pass is contributing more than an L2, because the circle are different and it’s like comparing apples and oranges. By putting everyone in one circle, I can start to see a picture of our top (perceived) contributors, regardless of member level.
Why is that important? I believe it’ll incentivize people to contribute in visible ways, and in doing so, they will be solving problems that actually matter. Rather than figuring out how to maximize one’s BANK by gaming the coordinape system (a complicated system is often easier to game), we’ll figure out how to maximize our BANK by actually doing something useful for the people around us.
The true currency of a DAO is contribution. BANK is merely a means of exchange. By simplifying our systems of allocation, we can bring our contributors closer to the DAO ideals of contribution.
This makes no sense at all, when you don’t allocate Give it gets burned and it increases the value in BANK for each GIVE. SO folks that don’t allocate BANK are actually just distributing bank evenly across all participants.
While i am in favor of trying this proposal if it is there is not education efforts to help folks learn how to use coordinape then your perceived issues will still persist.
Every Guild runs coordinape and all the guilds i am a part of use it poorly. Each Guild is responsible for developing it’s talent and making sure folks use the tools appropriately. A guild just has to make it a priority to learn coordinape then the education will happen.
One would think that L2s would be setting the example of how to use coordinape appropriately but by and large they also as a group use it poorly.
Changing the Math is easier than changing the culture. Experimentation however i support as ultimately it forces the education to happen.
While I think that Coordinape works best when more people allocate GIVEs, I don’t think L1’s and L2’s should have to allocate GIVE to get rewards.
Just because I contributed something to the DAO in a given epoch, doesn’t mean that I have strong opinions about how others in the DAO should be compensated for their contributions.
And like @ernest_of_gaia said, I think that unallocated GIVE raises the value in BANK for each GIVE and is equivalent to distributing bank evenly across all participants.
Not quite. Check out my example from the post above
The piece both you and @ernest_of_gaia are missing is that you can’t allocate GIVE to yourself, only others. This means when you allocate GIVE, you are reducing your overall % of GIVE and thus your BANK. Having an allocation requirement will tip towards participating.
Thank you McEal, you have actually said well, most GPs depend solely on coordinape to update their status in the DAO, I know most L1’s and L2’s that willingly opt out of coordinape because they feel they are well compensated through role holding and bounties which GPs have little or no access to or are probably learning the ropes at the moment
I do think the system should be maintained and suggestions/surveys should be conducted and get responses from contributors on how best to make coordinape work better, aside that the idea of a decentralized autonomous organisation might be tampered with
Talent coordinators might be given the task of educating members while onboarding their members, also the Education guild while doing the new joiners session should educate new joiners on how to use it, I learned most things there so I agree with Ernest on all he said
Yes, but it’s easy to see folk who do this, no? Or maybe this should be published? This is also an indication of folk not yet understanding Coordinape, I did this accidentally before I fully understood Coordinape.
While there may be short term gain, folk get to know, I suspect, and longer term won’t be giving to deliberate perpetrators.
There is an allocation difficulty that could be better supported.
If there is a Discord activity metric, looking at who has posted frequently, the depth of content posted and engagement levels, and in which channels, it can be easier for eg L2 to allocate Give.
I currently use Discord search on a channel by channel, guild by guild basis during Coordinape, for my allocation, so a bot to support L1/L2 allocation could perform a similar function.
You see nothing is bad in regarding L1 & L2 as the major contributor in the DAO but I have few things to say to that
What makes a Guest Passer Contributor (GPC) to be different from L1/L2 contributor?
ANSWER: It’s mainly because L1&L2 has held up to a particular amount of BANK token in his wallet
Does that mean that a GPC can’t make an equal or more contributions to the DAO more than the L1 & L2 if he finds his way to become one of them?
ALLOCATING ZERO GIVE TO GPC CAN MAKE THEM FEEL:
*Irrelevant in the DAO
*Unappreciated by the DAO (general wise)
*Inferior among L1&L2 contributors
*Discouraged
Few allocation of GIVE tokens to the GPC I think Is one of the ways to enable them to save some Bank tokens towards becoming a L1/L2 contributor, and also to appreciate/encourage them them
I have definitely seen Guest Passes contribute just as much or more as L1/L2s, and I think that we will be able to see the contributions individual Guest Passes make more easily in our new 1-circle coordinape system.
My personal philosophy is to use coordinape to pay for unpaid contribution, and IMHO new Guest Passes make unpaid contributions more than most other groups.
