New pollen proposal for period starting Oct 23

🌿 Proposals
#21

Great post and very interesting insights, thank you for posting. It would be interesting to see the ratio of people who dump on receipt vs who HODL - as I would think there is a low number of devs and content creators in the community, compared to people who have come for the faucet and claim+sell their HNY when it’s received.

Of course I have no way of knowing that, would be interesting to see # of people registered for faucet (2000+) vs # of people in discord (no idea?) vs # of people on discourse (yesterday was less than 190) to gain some further insight.

1 Like
#22

Interesting distinction. Because there’s only one place to sell HNY (Honeyswap), and people are (presumably) re-using ETH addresses for pollen and faucet distributions, I imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult to do chainanalysis to determine this. Though this could raise privacy issues, as 1Hive seems to generally value privacy and the ability to be pseudonymous
At a high level, you could probably filter tx’s into faucet/pollen categories without deanonymizing.

So I know there were at least 1,000 people on discord (i.e. had posted at least once) about a week ago. I know that because SourceCred choked, due to a hard-coded limit of 1,000 (since fixed). Though I guess you’re looking at discord daily visitors, which is a better measure of continued engagement.

#23

number of ids who received HNY distributions last week was 186 I believe. So I believe that is members with ~10+ cred, some of those were unmerged duplicates though. Would be a little harder to pin down daily discord visitors.

#24

I don’t think the quantity of HNY we distribute within the ecosystem for example, things like rewarding members should be dependent or connected with fiat(ie, it shouldn’t be related or connected to what price HNY is being exchanged for fiat), rather it should be based on what percentage of the Honey pot it translates to. The only exception being if what the HNY being requested for will inevitably require that the released HNY must have to be converted to fiat. In that case we consider what it will be worth in fiat. for example maybe if we want to pay a third party outside the ecosystem for a service and they won’t accept HNY.
Apart from such scenario which of course will always require interaction outside of the 1Hive ecosystem any other distribution of HNY from the Honey pot should be based on what percentage of the HNY pot it translates to at the time. I believe this approach is good for the 1Hive economy.
Having said that, Since discussions regarding minting is currently still ongoing it might be tricky to arrive at a percentage for pollen. Currently the 50 HNY weekly distribution translates to 0.67% of the Honey Pot, which i don’t think is bad if our intention currently is to distribute money and who best to distribute to than the people that are participating in the ecosystem.

8 Likes
#25

Totally agree! Honey is money

#26

Great insights thanks! I wonder if you could expand this data with more details about the user/community growth of these projects during the periods mentioned?

Should a larger community earn more total Cred or should it just be dilluted when the community grows?

I think that community growth, the actual value of the underlying token but also the inflation should be taken into account.

1 Like
#27

I’m seeing a lot of random new accounts here voting for 250 HNY who all were created around the same time within the last 24 hours. Just letting everyone know these accounts will not be counted for the purpose of this vote. We can see through this incredibly transparent form of gaming.

In the future we will likely have some sort of verification for discourse using brightID, or trust levels, or maybe even move these types of polls off of discourse and to dandelion polling or some other on-chain informal vote.

12 Likes
#28

Absolutely! i think everyone would agree that creating several accounts and voting shouldnt be possible in a resistant and stable voting ecosystem

2 Likes
#29

Can we delete their profiles and block their IPs?

#30

Exactly the issue i came here just now to raise, but i see you already did. This is totally unacceptable. Also something have to be done to prevent these sought of things.

1 Like
#31

Linking BrightID to the forum is a good idea.

3 Likes
#32

We might be able to, but this is a bit heavy-handed, and anyway it’s hard to know how many actors were actually involved in this. But yes, in the future I’m sure we can find a way to make discourse voting have a higher barrier to entry. Probably trust levels is the simplest implementation. I did not research how to do this before creating this poll.

We will have brightID verification for discourse in the vague future, but connecting this with polls might be more complicated.

3 Likes
#33

One idea that I think would be a fun experiment: we can export the raw vote data out of Discourse (into an Observable notebook), then mix it in with the Cred scores, and compute the result based on Cred-weighted voting and on Cred-weighted quadratic voting. This would solve the Sybil problem, since presumably these spam accounts have negligible Cred scores. If folks are interested I can help make it happen!

9 Likes
#34

The recent report mentioned in the MakerDAO bullet is actually the final report on our initial 3 month trial (which was extended), and includes engagement metrics. tldr; engagement (the main thing SourceCred’s performance was measured by) went up significantly. E.g. here’s a chart in the report.

image

SoruceCred itself has also grown considerably since it began dogfooding using Cred scores to pay contributors. Below is an observable notebook that visualized contributions, broken down by plugin. It appears to have broken due to an update, but if anyone wants to update it they can get fresh charts.

1Hive is obviously exploding, though hard to say how much SourceCred affected that. Most newcomers seem to have come for the faucet.

Cred is a proxy for value created. A larger community will generally create more value than a smaller one (e.g. more Discourse posts, GitHub PRs, discord memes, etc.). This is fairly tightly coupled currently, as Cred is minted primarily on reactions to contributions (e.g. likes on Discourse). More posts -> more likes -> more Cred minted (created).

One could configure SourceCred such that this coupling is looser. For instance, in the extreme case, you could set the weights such that no new contributions mint Cred. This would mean that the only way to get Cred is to interact with nodes that did have Cred. Any time you interact with a contribution (reply, react, etc.) an edge is formed between you and that contribution. Some amount of Cred then flows across that edge to you. This is generally undesirable however, as it tends to create zero-sum games. By having new contributions mint Cred, you have an increasing supply of Cred and (hopefully) a positive-sum game.

3 Likes
#35

Our community is growing day by day and handling the contributions is not an easy task for single person @befitsandpiper. May be not only you are working on this but someone else. I salute all of you for your hard work.

Coming to the proposal, it seems to be good. In my opinion distribution of honey to the contributions HNY 50 is enough otherwise peg this to USD with present honey price and change it for every two weeks. Then number of contributors will be benefited and it helps the community and Honey as well.

So I stick to 50 HNY and duration for two weeks distribution.

It’s just an opinion. Thanks you guys and be successful in future.

4 Likes
#36

These polls are now closed.

While 250 HNY/ week technically won by the 1 discourse account = 1 vote methodology, as explained in an earlier post in this thread, most of these accounts look like sybils: most of them have never posted before and many of these accounts were created at approximately the same time last week. Most of these accounts also did not vote on the week policy, showing a low level of engagement with the topic itself. There also were no posts in this thread giving reasoning for why we should distribute 250 HNY/ week.

Because of this, we are going with 50 HNY / week, which won a plurality vote once omitting the 250 HNY option, seems to have broad support from the community, represents no change from current policy, and had some good discussion within this topic.

There was no similar contention for the 2 weeks vs 6 weeks vote, and 2 weeks won with a super majority.

Final policy will be 50 HNY a week for the next 2 weeks, when we will revisit.

14 Likes
#37

I may have voted 250 HNY,

I can’t remember if I voted in that poll


And my account was probably created exactly that time.
I’m metaverde on discord and Petra something or other on Twitter.

Please don’t make me a sybil!

:grin:

Also, connecting Bright ID to the Discourse would be great.

#38

Wouh nice to see that the proposal of 250 hny for distribution did not pass.
:honey_pot: community is stronger then this bots someone send to vote for 250 hny.
No offense for real people who voted for 250hny but Its too much for now.

Let’s go :mechanical_arm:

1 Like
#39

This is would be awesome if it works. Also if it works, i’ll work on a signalling proposal which will be about anyone wanting to create a funding proposal getting support here on discourse first via a poll, before moving it to the 1Hive DAO for voting so people can put their HNY where their mouth is. I see the DAO is getting spammed again with lots of proposals.

1 Like
#40

I see more proposals around giving Faucet money or pollen - I understand the participation of the community is important. Willing to see technical ideas and contribution for HoneySwap platform as a whole to drive exponential growth.