My thoughts on pollen distributions

I would also like to take the chance and propose that some obvious offenders be deactivated for this distribution:

  1. Imran
    imran
    This guy is pretty obvious, all his posts have been given super-emojis by two accounts (very likely alts) @abdullah2008 and @redwalker
  2. @ pouria, @alisamei, @Majd, @Mazda, @saeed1111 @Aliabbasi_org alliance

Those users will together receive almost 3 HNY for contributing with absolutely nothing to this community. All they have done was post low effort logo slapping on google images in the meme channel then also to #design when the channel weight changed negatively there.
Almost all the cred they gathered is through reacting to eachother posts.

7 Likes

Add to @therealmo
pouria & aliabbasi & M.R & zemo25
232323.PNG
3344.PNG
2233
image

image

3 Likes

Yes, lowering the payouts should be the way to go, as @Rayne aid, maybe pollen should be a bonus instead of a huge payout. And funding swarms is a great idea.

@Blazar amazing write up!

I hope everyone sees the stress it takes to be a mod in this community. We have spent way to much time on stuff like this and we need to make a decision. Personally being in #fauna i can vouch that every intention made by the group is made to benefit 1Hive as a whole. There have been many remarks as the mods ā€œabusing powerā€ or making things ā€œunfairā€ which in fact is the complete opposite. Please be courteous to one another as many of us have been working day and night to sort out problems and issues that arise.

2 Likes

Lower the SC payouts to probably no more than $5K/week value equivalent.

Definitely some adjustments to SC regarding conditions for users to mint/flow cred based on age of account and some kind of voting model to approve or disapprove users (celeste?). Some methodology to identify users who are attempting to mint cred into small groups. Possibly a SC vesting model - where you donā€™t get your grain unless you prove yourself as being a positive contributor for some length of time.

Focus more on swarms, swarm DAOs with multsigs. Use proposals more to distribute Honey for effort.

3 Likes

The problem here is gamers getting big rewards. If people still game for tiny amounts, thatā€™s their problem. You, as a legit contributor, can still submit proposals on your behalf or being a member of a swarm for bigger rewards. This is not possible for them as they donā€™t have any trust from the community.

punishing the contributors (devs, support, design)

These are swarms already. You can go ahead and coordinate your swarm and ask for honey, rather than distributing huge amounts with something that needs to be shaped.

I agree with this. Last nightā€™s discussion around the distribution didnā€™t feel very 1Hive. I would prefer having the major source of distribution be through proposals until we can figure out a proper configuration / debug any possible issues we may have (if any), and set a penalization system for gamers as mentioned by Luigy.
Letā€™s calm the waters a bit and progressively scale it back up.

I think that doesnā€™t tackle to problem, even if the payouts are smaller, people will still try to game the system.

I think it does decrease the incentive to game it though.

6 Likes

In the end it comes down to what we want to incentivize and how much thatā€™s worth to the DAO, right? Is a weekā€™s worth of memes, no matter how dank, worth seven hundred xDai? Iā€™m a huge fan of memes but no, that doesnā€™t sound right to me.

This expands outward to activities on the entire discord. I agree with the calls to cut the payouts based on activities on a chat server.

Hi! Iā€™m just new here and still learning, Iā€™d been reading a lot this past few days and I think I get the gist most of the situation now. I would say lowering the amount of pollen payout and give GH 50% and 20%discord and 30%forum buckets will solve most of the problem now. This way we incentivize those really driving this project forward which mostly in github. And I think we also focus on incentivizing more the farm, let just think pollen reward as a added bonus instead.

1 Like

Thatā€™s interesting. Cutting down the distribution amount drastically, and now having to put up proposals in the hopes that some one or a few people votes for you dispite how hard you think you may have worked lolā€¦ looks like its over with this one folks.

Totally agree here. It is centralised environment with a few in power. You either beat em or join em. Anything can be changed here at any point- I totally get the gamer thing and I dont support cheaters.

Community votes dont mean a thing here lol what will happen now is the distribution will drop and people will be proposing left and right and - a few community favorites will be getting proposals approved.

Iv said this before and I will say it again - you cannot over look human psychology.

Communities within communities will be formed and you either fit in or stand out. The distribution cred system removed this human bias completely. I genuinely thought this system was a game changer and web 3.0 but this will be limited to the point its taxing honest contributors for some bad apples.

The evidence being supplied here is exactly the type of thing I was imagining Celeste being used for. Seems like the perfect use case. Trial by jury of your peers :woman_judge: It may seem high effort, but just look at all the effort already put out on this thread. What if it was used in court instead? Presumably, in addition to other mitigation measures weā€™re talking about, this would be an efficient, credibly neutral way to eject the gamers. It would also allow us to not over rely on rules or heuristics, which can be gamed or abused (e.g. to quell legitimate dissenting voices).

So, Iā€™m from SourceCred so biased, but do want to point out that nobody was expecting this kind of explosive growth, both in number of new community members and token price. Thus far, weā€™ve only chosen to actively encourage SourceCred use in smaller, more high-trust communities, for this very reason. We knew gaming would be an issue, and we wanted to build more mitigation measures before advising it for use in more adversarial environments. We have a page on Trust Levels in our docs that explains our thinking here. But, here we are. And I have to say, Iā€™m very impressed with how the 1Hive community has handled this. On the social level via moderation, but also just the intelligent discourse around these issues, the ability to collaborate with SourceCred to build mitigation measures (role-based Cred minting, channel-weighted minting, etc.). I know itā€™s gotta be hella frustrating in the trenches, but the mitigation measures are coming in hot! Iā€™m confident that between mitigation features, moderation and governance (e.g. decreasing rewards if necessary) the community will be able to make it work. Iā€™ve seen it work in SourceCred, which over the last year has distributed > $700k worth of its own token. Iā€™ve seen it work in MakerDAO, where we did see some gaming initially, but mitigated it with minting on trust levels in Discourse. 1Hive is a bigger step up than we were planning, and is requiring more work than anticipated, but what Iā€™m seeing here looks like 1Hive making that step. Itā€™s really impressive, and If 1Hive can work out these issues, get SourceCred humming again, this hive mind could be unstoppableā€¦

3 Likes

The results of this poll should have only been a signal. If thereā€™s no robust mechanism to prevent 1 more account per user, then this should have been voted through conviction voting similarly to how the faucet is topped up. The only difference is that this wasnā€™t really requesting funds, as the funds were already there.

The conviction voting mechanism doesnā€™t have a ā€˜noā€™ option and thereā€™s a significant amount of honey in hands of the community because 401.38 HNY tokens have been distributed to verified individuals through the faucet and a lot more with pollen.

Why should it only be a signal?

is a graph is possible to generate to see who give emoji to who??
i think we will have surprise if we have a look about this

because there is gamer, but there is also some people who have a little community of friend and put honey emoji in majority to their circle (yellow status included)

As you stated before, and so did I in my reply, thereā€™s no way right now to guarantee that each vote is legit since thereā€™s no verification when creating a discourse account, with that in mind and until thereā€™s a way to verify it, it should only be a signal.

Those are some awfully unfunny memes.

In terms of gaming, something like pairwise bonding might help dampen the effects of gaming where certain individuals are coordinating with others to do ā€œlike for likeā€ type schemes: https://ethresear.ch/t/pairwise-coordination-subsidies-a-new-quadratic-funding-design/5553

4 Likes