Personally I'd like to see a combination of the weighted vote categories with the least weight given to VP expenditure.
Rethinking Retroactive Rewards
juanje How about adding "# or % of proposals voted during the period" in the tabulation?
really like this, will add # of proposals, which will be proportionate to others anyways
mazzi Not a fan of "Days voted" and "Winners voted in"
Reason is that "Days voted" can be gameable having a bot voting each day with 1 VP, while "Winners voted in" encourages whales to boost a single piece instead of multiple ones.
don't want to jump on removing categories this early in discussion as people can choose to not vote for them, but noted these as "gameable" and to potentially remove. curious to see if others agree.
added 2 more categories based on some comments in the gov discussion channel on discord:
- buy back & burn Botto
- send to treasury
- Edited
+1 for governance participation
The 2-phase system is straight forward and it has my support.
I'd like us to be open to more novel ideas than ETH distribution, too. What if we rewarded active voters with art?
A raffle to win a Botto edition of a community favorite.
Artist grants for editions: Mia Forrest derivative of Complexity Incarnate, an Apocalypse Art derivative of Blossoming Cadaver, a Tjo's Witness Intensify, a Grant Riven Yun's Another Sector, etc.
- Edited
mazzi I generally agree with Mazzi on the categories. Voting for winners is maybe not so important for the protocol. And rewarding days voting could be mentally negative because I don’t think it’s good to promote that kind of grinding behavior that make you feel like you loose rewards if you miss a day. Could take the joy out of it.
Number of fragments voted on also has the risk of becoming a grind, but I see the benefit in awarding training Botto. That’s missing now.
I would like to ask - how important is the 1/1 voting for the protocol? And how much do we need more votes?
The risk is I would maybe vote faster and not enjoy the art as much. Don’t like that.
In that sense vp spent is good, then you can spend as much or as little time as you want.
Can we award training Botto in a way that doesn’t lure some of us into grinding?
Advocating removal of categories that incentivize high-frequency, short-term grinding behavior:
- Days voted
- Quantity of fragments voted on
Agree with Cooper that it'd be useful to have a clearer idea of what we're aiming for, as well as some insight on voting patterns so far (maybe that'll be easier when we get the API though?). Even on an individual level, I've never really been sure what's a useful approach in the voting -- and have wondered if that was a decision from the team not to 'teach' us so we don't boss Botto around too much.
Doing the category voting seems like a reasonable solution for this round given everyone's different interests. After that, agree with quimp and personally would prefer spending on things that feel fun, creative and exciting. Fun is also an incentive, but it's harder to measure.
- Edited
I feel "Days voted" and "Quantity of fragments voted on" are both good ways to track participation. Yes, they could be rigged with the help of bots, but if those categories stay with a lower weight in the distribution, that might lower the danger of that happening.
Could also consider variations of those, tied to picking winners or almost-winners:
- number of times voted on a fragment that made it into leaderboard (or top 3, top 5)
- number of different days voted on a fragment that made it into leaderboard
How about further categories that deemphasize the distribution to whales (which already receive by virtue of spending large amounts of VP on winners, potentially)? Is it possible to track VP spent per address relative to (average) daily VP generation? This would enable things like:
- VP spent on leaderboard fragments relative to VP generation (maybe excluding boosts?)
- VP spent on leaderboard entries that did NOT win relative to VP generation
- Edited
Cooper I would like to ask - how important is the 1/1 voting for the protocol? And how much do we need more votes?
sharing here response from @Quasimondo:
I think botto does get enough votes, yes. Generally I would like to find a balance for rewards which does not only favor people with a lot of VPs.
Which is why I believe days voted is a fair measure that should stay in
I also think that number of different fragments voted should get a large ratio
I also think winners voted on is important [if we can easily track those who voted on a winner leaderboard]
I am not too concerned about bot votes at the moment at least not in this phase
number of boosts is something I feel is already covered by the active weekly rewards
Some updates based on discussion:
Voting Data - We can release the voting data so that people can better assess the categories they want to award, and scenarios of how different weight distributions would look in the payouts. We will likely push out the snapshot a few days to give people time to dig in. cc oiseau
stfnfhrmnn Could also consider variations of those, tied to picking winners or almost-winners:
...
How about further categories that deemphasize the distribution to whales (which already receive by virtue of spending large amounts of VP on winners, potentially)?
As for more variations on categories, I believe we should keep it simple for this vote. Categories need to be pretty self explanatory when listed in the snapshot as I wouldn’t count on everyone following closely. However, I think these suggestions could be good to consider for regular rewards going forward if we are to get rid of this retroactive rewards format, along with other fun formats like quip suggested.
Regarding use for burning, treasury, or LP, it is important that we follow through on what we’ve promised, which is that 50% of revenue would be distributed to participants. LP I think is off topic for this and requires its own discussion, which is ongoing in #governance-discussion on discord right now. Burning and treasury are indirect distributions, so can work as categories among others and provide good data on whether this is where people want to see revenue going.
Rounds multiplier - Will shift this to a “multiplier” rather than a category. We want to distribute according to round participation, which helps weight for time invested without biasing to people’s methods (voting over many days vs. focusing on one day each week, etc.). The way this would work is to simply count your rounds proportional to everyone else’s and multiply by your other qualifying categories.
sw5park Advocating removal of categories that incentivize high-frequency, short-term grinding behavior:
Days voted
Quantity of fragments voted on
Days voted and Quantity voted - These have gotten mixed support, so important to keep since people can choose to vote on something else. Days voted can be an incentive to keep coming and checking in and do some voting each day, and it is important for Botto to get feedback on many different fragments. I believe there’s been some criticism of “grinding” that is actually an element of simply supporting Botto. Returning each day can be good to continue to see new art and get some votes in.
General notes: As we just saw yesterday, sybiling is a real risk. The minimum 2000 $BOTTO staking requirement significantly mitigates that activity affecting these retroactive rewards, but we should absolutely be wary of things that are notable.
What’s useful about this format is that as a retroactive vote and weighting by rounds helps prevent gaming on this upcoming decision. And if you don’t want to reward a category, put your voting weight somewhere else.
However, given the repeatable nature of each period, these benefits of retroactive rewards probably won’t work as well going forward as they become more easily gameable. We can use the outcome of this vote to see where people want to see weights to determine how we want to reward in the 3rd period and whether to keep retroactive rewards at all. We can also consider other weighted methods and a staking lockup multiplier, but will leave that for a separate BIP.
Tldr updates:
Voting data release with scenarios + added time to analyze
Rounds become multiplier, removed as category
Another behavior/metric for the tabulation: # of times people vote in #staking-descriptions
Reason/background: few people do (just looking, fewer than 15 last time)
juanje Yeah I think this is an interesting thing to explore actually, it signals a higher level of participation. One caveat is maybe that the process for getting your wallet connected and verified (to get the Staker role) isn't the cleanest in terms of implementation, so maybe some don't know how to participate. I'd like to think the weekly announcements tagging stakers would spark enough curiosity there though.
15 days later
hudsonsims locked the discussion.