I donāt think having a fixed supply really matters when it comes to deciding whether to use SourceCred at all. To me, it would just make sense for less to be distributed each week, and that amount can always scale down as time goes on (assuming the value of Agave goes up). Similar to how Pollen now pegs the HNY distro to the USD value.
Again I am not suggesting that we create a separate SourceCred instance for Agave right now. I am just interested in clearly understanding why Agave should be supported by Pollen indefinitely, or if the idea is that at some point it will be able to support itself with its own SourceCred instance. And if so, what are the criteria for that.
I am also not suggesting that you be responsible for managing the Agave SourceCred instance @befitsandpiper .
There is a post up now discussing that work is being done to automate a lot of the SourceCred work, which should make your current job easier, and should also make it easier for other people to lend a hand as well as (potentially) run a separate Agave instance much easier.
A major reason why I feel Agave could use its own SourceCred instance though is because the only way to earn Agave right now (besides being on the swarm payroll), would be to earn Honey and sell it for Agave. Which puts sell pressure on Honey and buy pressure on Agave. This benefits those that already hold Agave, and may not benefit those that hold Honey unless the revenue kickback does in fact outpace the Pollen expense plus the selling pressure, but this is yet to be seen. There are currently 4188 holders of Agave but still, we are seeing a poor turnout for votes. There are less than 100 people on the Discord server, and even less than that contribute.
I just feel like there should be a better way for those that contribute to earn Agave for participating in the community, this will get more tokens into the hands of the people that care and who will turn up to vote.
I guess what I am saying is that I am less interested in having a dedicated SourceCred Agave instance and more interested in getting Agave into the hands of those that contribute and are willing to participate in governance. Although I do see SourceCred as a good way of doing that, If there were another mechanism to do this though I would be interested in talking about that.
I totally agree with you, there are people really interested in contributing and participating in the growth of agve, doing the best they know how to do for the project and the ideal would be agve would have its earnings separately, without the need for the user who owns Hny to sell to get agve! it is my mild opinion
Iām currently against adding Agave repos and their Discord to the 1Hive Pollen instance and agree with the reasons stated by @CurlyBracketEffect.
Iām also unsure if we should add the Tulip Discord as itās an invite only server.
30 HNY comes to more than $20k so at about $820 per HNY we will be paying out ~25 HNY per week, is that correct or are you suggesting increasing the payout to 30 HNY?
Iām also against adding Agave (mostly concerned about Discord) to Pollen. The reasons are the same stated by @CurlyBracketEffect, but besides that, in Discord particularly, Iāve seen single messages with over 70 reactions and that would certainly be really unfair for people helping & participating in 1Hive discord where this is not as common. Even if more HNY is put towards the distribution, that wonāt solve this issue.
messages with 70 reacts? You mean like announcements? These would not count for cred, and the minting roles and discord weights would be set up similar to 1hiveās discord, a number of channels would also have zero weights such as the info channels.
Soā¦ from this Iām gathering that we donāt want to include Agave in pollen then? Should I retract my feature request by SourceCred to allow multiple discord servers in an instance?
I thought this made sense from a community incentives perspective, since we have been splitting the community into a number of different discord servers now. I guess to me it seems strange to have pollen on the 1hive server but not others as we continue to expand and split out swarms into their own separate servers.
But I also see the point around invite-only servers. The tulip swarm server is not particularly exclusive. We can consider it kind of an extension of the idea behind swarm channels. But maybe we should rethink how we permission these things as we continue this move for more swarms in the future.
So to clarify you will be paying out the HNY value of $20k at the time? Or 30 Honey if itās less?
I believe the $ cap cap was lower before so Iām checking that this is still the expected calculation and so others are aware of exactly how much will be paid out.
So I think we are talking about a couple of different things here:
Swarms that have their own servers being incentivized by Pollen
and
A GardenDAO that started as a swarm (but now has its own token) being incentivized by Pollen
I donāt see a problem with incentivizing Discord discussion on swarm servers that are building up aspects of the 1Hive ecosystem. It would make sense to me for these servers to be open to the public in true DAO fashion though. In this case, it would be useful to have multiple Discord servers to feed into one SourceCred instance. So, I think you should keep the request open. Although, if we really wanted to be granular about it, a Swarm could have their own instance and still get funding for it through 1Hive proposals requesting Honey. I think that might be overkill at this point, but it would give a more robust way of budgeting and allocating funds to different areas of the Hive. It would also make it so that folks that are working in a particular swarm donāt feel like their work is being overshadowed /being weighted unfairly against other āmore popularā topics. Once the Pollen automation tools are ready this would likely be a lot more feasible.
If a swarm is working on a project that ends up creating its own token like Agave and soon other Garden DAOs, it makes sense to me that we strongly consider encouraging those projects to build their own SourceCred instance. Particularly if the token is used for voting, I believe there needs to be a way for the most active community members to earn voting power by engaging in constructive conversation and providing meaningful code contributions. In this case, it would be useful to have a separate SourceCred instance. Agave would still be free to create a proposal to have 1Hive provide HNY to the project if the community believed that it is still in need of support, but I really think it is in the best interest of both projects to encourage the Garden to build a stronger token economy by incentivizing its contributors from its own coffers.
I fully agree with your assessment, in particular I see Agave taking giant steps, it would be ideal if they at least had the notion of building their own sourcred instance.
and the active agave community have the subtlety to discuss constructively for the benefit of the project would be the ideal thing to advance even further!
I will say, having multiple SourceCred servers imo is a bit of a dealbreaker. This would mean individuals would have much different scores on different instances, and have to reestablish themselves. It would mean needing several people who can manage a SourceCred instance, it would also make the Agave Payday lending proposal with SourceCred nearly impossible in the near term.
Maybe there is a compromise that can be made where some additional agave is sent to the 1hive DAO on a weekly basis or something in exchange for being added to the 1hive SC instance? I really think having 1 instance that pays out to the ecosystem as a whole is the best path forward until SourceCred dependencies and linking instances together is more robust and intuitive, and maintaining an instance isnāt so time consuming and unintuitive.
Again I am interested in other solutions to the main issue I am pointing out which is: There is no way to get Agave into the hands of those that contribute.
How would you propose the $Agave that you are suggesting gets donated to 1Hive be distributed to the people that have participated in discussion and code specifically for the Agave project?
I donāt see how having people with different scores on different SourceCred instances is a bad thing. I think itās actually a good thingā¦for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. In terms of having to reestablish themselves, having a separate instance would actually make it easier for a new member to start gaining a meaningful amount of Cred/tokens for their contribution. Everyone would be starting out on equal footing for that project, and if you contribute to one swarm and not another you are not splitting funds with people that have already built up a bunch of cred from past work on other projects.
For example: if Swarm A has 5 people contributing to it and Swarm B has 10 people contributing to it and the allocation to source cred is 50 HNY, and assuming the output of each swarm is determined to be of equal importance and the input of each member is determined to be roughly the same; then the distribution would have each member in both Swarms receive 1 HNY.
BUT if each swarm had its own SC instance then a proposal could be put through to present the value of the Swarms output, which would then be voted on by the DAO to receive an allocation of HNY. Now say it was determined again that Swarm Aās output is of equal value to that of Swarm B and they were allotted 25 HNY each (50 total from the first example). And assuming once again that all members contributed roughly the same amount, the distribution looks a lot different. Each member in Swarm A would receive 5 HNY (25 HNY/5 members), while the members in Swarm B would only get 2.5 HNY 25HNY/10 members).
Whatās wrong with having more people managing SC instances? You mentioned to me when I was asking you questions about SC that it is actually much easier to manage SC when the pool of contributers is smaller. So this sounds like a bonus to me. It gives other community members the opportunity to step up and help out, and it spreads the workload across more people, which would, in turn, make your job (as it is right now) easier.
I think you are still conflating the 2 separate topics we are discussing here as I mentioned in my last post:
I am not suggesting that every swarm get their own SC instance right now, but I think it is something that we can and (maybe) should move towards. This will become more feasible with the automations that are currently being worked on.
I think Agave should have its own instance because it has its own token that would ideally be distributed to the members of the community that have contributed to the project directly.
I was under the impression that this feature is still just a thought that was added as one potential thing that could be added to Agave in the future. There is no timeline or as far as I know, any work being done on it currently. Even still I imagine implementing this is going to come with a number of intricate problems to solve. To say that it makes it impossible I think may be inaccurate. I mean if for the first iteration one could only get a cash advance on the HNY they are getting from the main Pollen instance, I donāt think that would be the end of the world. I would presume that down the road Agave might want to allow people to take out loans on Cred they are earning in other projects that have separate SC instances (like maybe the SC instance for the people building SourceCred for example). In that case, we are facing the same issue. So maybe it would be simple enough to say you will need to take out a loan based on a specific SC instance and if a person wants to, they could take out several loans, one for each of the SC instances they have built up cred in. Much like we will be able to take out loans based on different collateral types, an SC instance just acts like a different source of collateral, and each SC instance we are a part of would be a distinguishable source of collateral. This would be in lieu of being able to build the payday system in such a way that it is able to combine SC instances into one form of collateral, which I can imagine being more difficult to do, but I wouldnāt say impossible at this point.
I just want to say that I am still not sold on the idea of payday loans in the first place. I think it opens up a slippery slope and is reminiscent of aspects of the traditional finance system that I find unsavory. I trust that the community can decide if it is something it wants to support though. However, In order to do that people will need a way to obtain tokens, which brings this post full circle.
+1 to this, which should be at the core of any fledgling DAO that is trying to take shape like AGAVE. At this stage, I know there was a fair launch and community members that had spent effort in some way got retroactively rewarded. But the key is then to have the next set of community members that want to be part of the protocols development and play the most active part at the early stages of the protocol to earn the token that can then be used to influence the protocols progress. I really hope that any future DAOs that spawn from the Gardens DAO consider this.
The best example for me is 1Hive/HNY - So I as a newer user missed in the initial distro phase where the faucet probably dished out 1 or more HNY for being around. But when i did get here and started to dig around, i realised sourcecred (leading to cred/pollen/HNY) was one of the best incentives i found from the other DAOs I was involved. This really then incentivises a current crop of users/community!
I commented on this subject in this forum post here
In short I believe 1hiveās number one objective is building a community, pollen is exceptional at doing this. I think pollen (honey) paid to swarms/communities like agave & tulip is extremely beneficial to that vision of 1hive. As a way to keep the communities connected it would be nice to see 1hiveās reach grow with it. It only has to be a very insignificant amount like $1k per week to the agave discord + github to have a positive impact. I do not support any funding from agave to 1hive to fund this.
The pollen system is very important to me too. I am also late to the party and the pollen system is my primary source of hny. Whenever I think about spending some time on Discord I am pulled towards 1hive even though sometimes I want to help other daos, like Agave beezu and hivecraft. The fact that I canāt build pollen elsewhere has a strong influence on where I spend my time and energy. I definitely want to see the pollen/cred system expand to other projects stemming from 1hive. Or some other way to reward contributors. I really donāt know enough about what kind of work is involved creating an individual instance of SC to comment on that decision.
Yea 100% - the source cred is a really good incentive and an ingenious one at that! Not sure who the credit goes to but I wish a lot of the other DAOs actually utilise this method to distribute tokens fairly instead of all out dropping tokens to the whales. If they even allocate a small % of the total airdrop to something very productive like source cred/ pollen i think community engagement and quality on discord/ discourse will really improve - eventually bringing back value to the DAO and protocol! Its a super cycle once it gets going like pollen in 1Hive at the moment!
So one really cool aspect of SourceCred is that it is retroactive. Meaning once you activate it on a platform it gathers all the past saved data and applies the weighting rules to it and mints the appropriate amount of grain to the users that opted in.
I think it is safe to assume that most if not all 1Hive related servers will be incentivized at some point. I think what we are discussing at present is if they should all be under the same instance or if some or all of them should have their own SourceCred instance. On top of that, we are discussing what currency is most appropriate as payment for which swarms.
All that being said if you want to contribute to other swarms I think you should. While you will likely not receive the reward soon, I believe the idea is that you will eventually.
