Ben Distribute active rewards solely, no retroactive. Would simplify things and make it easier to model out BOTTO token value. Already a lot of complexity with Botto, so all else equal, I like simplifying things.
I lean towards this too, but please see my other point below. I'm a big advocate of simplifying what we have: I dislike the extra level of effort required to flesh out retroactive rewards - but at the same time, this is the first time we've ever been through this process so I'm not sure whether outright discarding it is the best thing.
justinn i agree with ben about dropping retroactive rewards - there is a lot of contention around how they should be awarded. rolling those into active rewards feels like it will increase weekly excitement around auctions, and will provide more instant gratification to those who are actively participating.
Devil's advocate on two points: Would it provide more instant gratification and at what cost? From some discussion on Discord, 'smaller' players like the idea of retroactive rewards and may feel disincentivized to vote if they feel there's no reward and/or less reward.
Second, the contentiousness of retroactive rewards was always meant to be a discussion. The weighted vote for retroactive rewards allows people to distribute their vote across categories that include topping up the active rewards in Period 2, performing a burn, or sending to treasury. So this deals with that contention in a democratic way and gives us information of where opinions actually lie that we can then incorporate into a future proposal on the economy.
FireHat In addition to eliminating retroactive rewards, I would strongly encourage using some funds to boost Protocol Owned Liquidity
Totally agree, but IMO that's a separate discussion for outside of this BIP. We can follow up with another BIP where we religiously allocate a % of auction proceeds to reinforcing PoL.
Taking one look at the leaderboard each week displays behavior that might not necessarily have proper alignment with Botto(!) i.e. those with greater vote power generally spend far less time curating. The big question we have to ask is - to what degree are we sacrificing training and curating the best artworks each week for Botto just for the sake of 'simplicity'. Maybe I've missed it, but I have not come across a good counterargument to this pop up on Discord.
One counterargument I could make is that those spending more but curating less artworks may just be showing conviction in what's on the leaderboard and they're not just vote dumping (in which case, there actually is alignment). Even then, we've got to ask ourselves how these artworks get onto the leaderboard to begin with.
Should we shift only to active rewards, we should do so not under the pretense that it's simplifying the economy for new participants(advantageous but not core reasoning IMO), rather we should do so because voting behavior is aligned with desired actions that benefit Botto the artist - i.e. people are still voting to curate the best artwork, rather than just earn their reward. This is a large assumption to make.
Also, yes, those with greater vested interest (staked tokens) should likely receive a larger portion of rewards. I think that line of argumentation is merited. But those putting in labor should either 1) earn fairly as well for doing the hard work to some degree and/or 2) at least be exposed to a mechanism that lets them build up their own stake in Botto.
If we do feel retroactive rewards are still important for encouraging curation earlier in the week / getting us through the 1050 fragments to result in a good leaderboard, perhaps retroactive rewards should not reward ETH, rather they should reward $BOTTO proportionate to a person's stake. Perhaps there's a different implementation we could consider which can be retroactively added during the period to fairly reward those who train Botto well, while simultaneously getting rid of the current iteration of retroactive rewards.
And say we got rid of retroactive rewards - what % would we like to see active rewards being distributed? Would think that at least some of that 25% should go to initiatives to encourage robust voting behavior, developing Botto, or growing the protocol overall. If the DAO is adamant on removing retroactive rewards for this period, we should seek clarification re. numbers.
Ben 100% burn rather than 20%. The 20% seems arbitrary, not sure why we don't just burn the equivalent of 100% if we feel that a burn is constructive to begin with.
20% was a conservative way to maintain the burn narrative. We'd be burning a lot of treasury funds in the future if we commit to 100% while simultaneously distributing half of its equivalent in ETH: between the lines this means the treasury is net negative after every auction. If we want a number that might make more sense, we could always increase the burn to 50%, which is the equivalent of what is currently distributed to voters (25% active 25% retroactive). Bear in mind that in Fragmentation, we burned over 470,000 $BOTTO. Ceteris paribus, at 100% burn rate we'd end up with 0 $BOTTO in treasury after 2 years, or 8 periods.
It might also be worth considering raising treasury funds through OTC deals in the future. We're ETH poor and have real costs to cover. I don't contest that the treasury has too much $BOTTO currently - but we don't have enough ETH in the treasury to provide sizable runway into future DAO ops for more than a few years (probably less). I've no doubt the ETH in the treasury will continue to grow - but we should probably pace ourselves accordingly.
Ben I'm unclear on which revenue from Genesis Period treasury sales is being distributed in the third period? Is it from the Mods sales (I thought those were already distributed?) and/or from the four other sales?
The other four - Happy to adjust phrasing to clarify maybe I've phrased it awkwardly
Ben may have missed this but should probably specify how proceeds from any secondary sales that may occur prior to the third period (or during the period) are to be distributed.
Good point. For the intermediary period, 25% of any revenue would be distributed as active rewards. I should clarify that in this BIP. For the third period, any revenue would be distributed according to active rewards and retroactive rewards (25/25). The intermediary period wasn't planned to have a burn, but that's something we can bake in easily if the DAO chooses.
Ben Lastly, in regards to onboarding rewards - I think that immersive airdrops can be super effective but only if they are hyper-targeted and guarded against sybil. So for example, targeting recent SuperRare collectors who didn't receive OG airdrop. Probably something to look into a bit down the road.
Agree with this to a large extent. I like the idea of immersive airdrops and I don't think access passes are the same thing at the end of the day (no access to economy rewards through AP, just voting exposure). Perhaps they could work in tandem with one another, say by creating a special pass with onboarding rewards linked to it and being hyper targeted about who we give it to. That requires less build time and makes use of existing mechanisms we have in Botto.
If you made it this far in my braindump, I'd like to clarify that:
I don't think retroactive rewards are ultimately the way to go - and I still believe users will curate irrespective of whether retroactive rewards are there or not. I think there might be an under/overlooked mechanism to reward the biggest trainers some more $BOTTO to reward as fairly as possible. Is the timing right to remove retroactive rewards outright? I'm not so sure.
The burn set at 20% is conservative but with some basic reasoning (don't burn too much but retain narrative). TL;DR the $BOTTO will be useful in the future and gives us more flexibility, but burning only 20-50% is not being non-committal. I think this should be its own debate, much like how we changed the BB&B mechanism mid Genesis.
We can change economy numbers also during the third period if we have a clear proposal pop up. I advise the DAO not to see proposed numbers or economy format as blockers to just getting on with the third period.