quimp We need a better cadence.
We're breaking Botto's predictability by making periods into BIPs. The extra delay takes away from the "One 1/1 per week, forever" narrative, which is one of our greatest assets.
This is the biggest takeaway for me based on feedback in this post, and I wholeheartedly agree.
There is also a possibility that a Period BIP fails to pass, causing extra delays and hurting trust in Botto.
I agree. For this BIP, I will separate the economy aspect from the rest of BIP-29, and we can run a concurrent vote. This means that there will be a BIP-29 and BIP-30 to be voted on by end of the week.
I would suggest that 1) periods run automatically
I'd like to spawn a separate BIP once the fourth period has started outlining the de-facto standard that the DAO would operate on, after the Fourth Period has started. This would specify when theme curation would take place, length, models, etc (similar to this BIP), so that moving forward, theme curation, and the Fifth Period would occur uninterrupted and without another lengthy BIP. Whether this includes an interim period (of say, 1 week), I'm unsure - but to your point, this change should significantly improve cadence.
and sequentially without delay, and that 2) improvement BIPs are separated.
After fourth period, this should be the case (see points above).
New Models & Cutoff
Ben What's the thinking behind maintaining SD1.5 while SD2 is introduced? Also, is it possible to introduce a newer version?
Yes, 2.1 will be introduced. My fault - it seems I put the wrong one in the BIP. I've updated this to reflect the change. Apologies for any confusion
Ben If that’s the case I’m not sure giving VQGAN only 5.5% allocation makes sense. Let’s say there are even just two or three super promising VQGAN fragments. I wouldn’t want to lose those just because VQGAN didn’t outcompete on what seems like an unlevel playing field (get 10% of votes when only comprising 4.5% of the pool).
The formula applied tried to respect the current % distribution between SD 1.5 and VQGAN, while simultaneously accommodating two new models into Botto's Art Engine. In this scenario, the two newer models were allocated larger % distributions to ensure they were given a fairer chance in competing, see full reasoning in §3.2. While VQGAN has a much higher chance to lose in this scenario, we have seen VQGAN drop from 30.47% of outputs down to 11% in one period. Over the past 24 mints (Fragmentation & Paradox), a VQGAN artwork was minted once, only after the DAO rallied together to vote through A Life in the Suburbs back in Fragmentation. The past 12 mints did not feature a VQGAN artwork.
Finally, one unmentioned reason would be server costs. VQGAN runs independently on its own instance (as does each model, now). There will come a time where we need to consider cost of inclusion for each model. The 10% cutoff attempted to preemptively tackle this. The only recommendation I can make to accommodate your point and refri's point would be to hold off on the 10% cutoff. This would ensure we are not acting too hastily.
Holding off on the 10% cutoff would also allow for a more gentle introduction of Negative VP Expenditure, addressing these concerns:
Ben For example, a model may be unfairly disqualified because one of its fragments receives a large negative expenditure.
refri Regarding the negative vp I am also not too sure if it will improve much. At least when looking at my own voting behaviour it wont have much impact, cause I don't see how much vp a fragment has already received (and thereby wouldn't know it's necessary to down-vote it).
To address Retroactive Rewards concerns voiced by Encryptus (and perhaps others) on Discord:
But tbh it was quite surprising to find the elimination of retroactive rewards all of a sudden, packed in a BIP of wide scope, without grounded and compelling arguments beyond cost.
I think the ability to sybil retroactive rewards is the most important reason to get rid of retroactive rewards.
What is 100% clear is that we are being prompted to make a blind decision
We didn't even reach any sort of agreement on some guidance on what good voting behavior is (just remember something Choobie said about there not being anything as too much voting atm). The fact that there isn't any standard/guidance, and that dao members have ZERO insights on what's going on with voting, is the perfect breeding ground for missing opportunities on improving the project (and losing resources)
And then we would have some evidence (or hints) of grinding and many other useful variables. It would be a big plus for everyone, and attractive to new investors/members, who also care about what's going on in terms of activity, given that sales can be subsidized/faked/sustained...artificially for some time
I disagree with this - we have gone through the retroactive rewards allocation process once for Fragmentation, and we know what to expect. Data was also made available for the 2nd period of retroactive rewards. We need to do a better job at making data consistently available - but again, said data is ultimately not relevant insofar as retroactive rewards can be sybilled, which is IMO the main point. Here are the reward categories that were presented in Fragmentation, for reference.
I'm suggesting to invest on the first step required to make informed decisions: information
Agree - but what more information is required here to make an informed choice on removing retroactive rewards? As far as I understood from your comments on #governance-discussion, we are interested in seeing whether 'grinding' has been harmful and we should partially base our decision off of that. Whether there was grinding or not - I think the main issue here is that I can split all my $BOTTO and automate a 'grind' to qualify for as many possible retroactive scenarios as possible, while benefitting from active rewards as well. Again, I'm not contesting that its important we consistently have data readily available. I am just not sure whether having more data is what stops us from making an informed decision here, especially when retroactive rewards is sybillable by current design.
choobie We should be spending this time to either isolate preferred engagement variables and find meaningful ways to reward them, while at the same time keeping current incentive mechanisms straightforward and focusing on the idea of rewarding voters.
How DAO members vote is entirely up to them, we know that more voting data is better for the art engine. We also know that there is core alignment to voting in general: Botto mints something bad and we should expect less reward. We also know that voting behavior earlier in the round affects curation significantly as it has an effect on what others see in the voting pool (this has been communicated multiple times). The latter is a good starting point for isolating a preferred engagement variable. We have had up to +-30 weeks to come up with viable alternatives to retroactive rewards. I do not see this as a "surrender", rather a modification that aligns with existing DAO feedback and simplifies a reward structure.
If the problem is complexity only, I have another proposal: eliminate retroactive and send that 25% to treasury
I will include this as an alternative to the separated BIP-30 that proposes the economy changes. I see this is as a useful alternative for those with a more conservative stance.
- Remove 10% Cutoff for the timebeing
- Isolate Economy / Retroactive Rewards removal, create BIP-30
- BIP-30 voted on concurrently
- BIP-30 proposes an alternative allocation method to retroactive rewards (25% to treasury instead)
- Upcoming BIP after fourth period starts, improving cadence of Botto