Coordinape Round Improvement Proposal [CRIP 1]

Some analysis of our first experimental $BANK distribution via Coordinape:

I think it is one of the most important aspects for us to figure out
how to use this mechanism to benefit our growth.

The graphic shows that all except 4 participants line up nearly perfect on the red exponential regression curve.
This is very similar to some agent based wealth distribution models and can also be found in the real world. wealth dynamics (python)
I think the four outliers could be caused by many participants that were not so much involved yet and chose 3 or 4 of the most notable figures they came across in discord.

The basic idea now is to use a curve for distribution instead of the actual noisy data.
This would also give us the freedom to “flatten” the curve a bit and tweak it to experiment with what works best. I think it would be more encouraging for many participants if they’d receive a little just for taking time to check out the DAO and learning about it.
Also I think a wider distribution could be a driver for trading volume in the long run.

For example if we reduce the value of k in the formula the curve would look like this:

You can fiddle around with the graphs on desmos
interactive graphing tool

Let me know what you think about the idea.


Interesting, thanks for doing this! I could see this being used to guide future distribution events (i.e., airdrop, coordinape etc). I wonder what the tokenomics channel think of this :thinking:


I don’t quite understand the proposition. Can you please dumb it down for me? :joy:

1 Like

Also, I’m moving this to general. If you’d like to make a proposal, please use the template pinned in the proposal section :slight_smile:

The comment I make is not a criticism but just an observation, I don’t know about other people, but specifically in my case, my low participation in the activities is exclusively due to the exclusionary character of the language at BANKELLES, which is impossibly in English.
Although I use the translator, many times the real meaning of the message is lost.

Thanks for your replies,
when I wrote this I was a bit sleep deprived and reading it now I see there’s a lot of coherency missing :thinking:
The following days I will think this through and provide an update.
@frogmonkee Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn’t aware of the proposal template :slight_smile:

Wondering how much Coordinape distribution aligned with the activity of those members? I am thinking they will likely line up pretty well

Great work! I was wondering if we are able to compare these distribution curves to other DAOs who use Coordinape? Maybe we can learn something new about how fair/unfair reward distribution happens across the network/social graph payments landscape?

An alternate way of redistribution could be real-time/dynamically allocating GIVE tokens to those who receive disproportionate amounts instead of the current Lv1 100, Lv2 500 fixed amounts. So maybe after the epoch ends, the top 5 addresses could have the opportunity to redistribute more GIVE tokens to other members (those with less than the average number of tokens)


I’m sorry but i did’nt understand anything in the original post.

is there an ELI5? (explain like im 5)


i am hearing this is a typical distribution in group economics

On outliers I will say that discord moderation, support, and coordination activities are extremely valuable services to the DAO and due to network effects would be expected to be rewarded well in a social renumeration system like Coordinape. All of us have personally been helped by these people. The outliers ranged 3-5x above the group, which is not a huge disparity especially when you consider the activity level of those outliers.

We might want to limit GIVE allocators to those who have been active at least 1 month to ensure that they have enough knowledge of what’s going on in the DAO to allocate somewhat fairly. Other than that, this process was flawless imo.

1 Like

A time floor makes sense to me.

I’m not sure I’m in favour of a k-curve (or any other style of fit based flattening or programatic distribution). I think the thoughtful reflections in the replies about human based assessments of valuable activities (i.e. coordination/community) and power-law curves are bang on.

SUGGESTIONS – I could get behind either:

  1. A 2nd round prior to final distribution where those who feel like they got GIVE beyond their personal assessment of their contributions could give away some of their GIVE to others (like a self-assessed calibration round) — In fact I thought coordinape already did this or will do something like this soon

  2. Thresholds on who can participate in addition to Level 1 (e.g. joined x weeks prior to coordinape round)

Hi Coordinape dev here,

Two things,

  1. I want to make it easier to do analysis like this, would love to talk to anyone about their experience, to better understand what needs to be on our roadmap.

  2. Another DAO wanted to use “standardization” that would mean that each person’s allocation would be scaled by = ( num_people_gave_to / num_max_people_gave_to ) that would mean that when you give to only one person, your tokens aren’t counted as strongly. I have no intuition for how that would change this curve.

A funny thing is I think that this exponential becomes stronger the more people in the circle.

This is super interesting reading - I want to help bankless reach it’s goals :slight_smile:


This is related to coordinape but not specifically about the topic in discussion here, but I’d like to know if there is any progress on doing a coordinape to decide what projects to fund and for how much.

1 Like

It’s something we have our eyes on, others have asked for it. Currently main priority is to get on chain with easy vault and dispersement mechanisms.

Something I’ve been thinking about is what is the wider organization experience. Would you say more about what you imagine happening with that, what would you want to allocate between and then what would happen after the community allocated?

1 Like

I would say same model as for contributors. So people have tokens and they allocate it to the projects they want to fund… then the distribution is directly proportional to the allocations. Another model would be quadratic funding… maybe you could have both models and people could choose which one want to use?

Yeah, I’m totally interested in this. Like ‘dot-voting’ for project funding, or quadratic funding models (GitCoin), or like the old Pandora method (This Product Prioritization System Nabbed Pandora 70 Million Monthly Users with Just 40 Engineers | First Round Review)

Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.