Over the last few weeks we’ve been working on figuring out how to allocate the last many months of Ops/Gov $ROBOT rewards. We had not yet distributed any of the ops rewards since the $50k milestone, so based on the distribution schedule, we have 32,200 ROBOT to distribute as of the latest sales milestone.
One reason the distribution was delayed so long was because there was only a handful of active MF contributors and a boatload of ROBOT allocated, which would concentrate the token supply pretty quickly. In addition, there was a lot of increase in sales / participation / contributors very quickly, so it felt right to wait until more new contributors got on board so we could deploy the ROBOT into more hands instead of using it all up early on.
However, because it was delayed for so long, it caused uncertainty among contributors for how we would determine the allocations. It’s time now we establish a clear process and guidelines for how these tokens are to be allocated, and start to distribute them more frequently.
When the original distribution schedule was made, we didn’t expect ROBOT to become as big as it this soon. The 32k ROBOT is worth ~$1.4m even at the lowest price of the last 90 days, and if we were to distribute even half of that to contributors it would be a very healthy sum.
Therefore, I think it would be prudent of us to preserve a portion of this distribution for future rewards, especially since we are still going hard to onboard more devs / core contributors and just starting our next chapter of MF (curation game, NFT metaverse wearables, better product / packaging quality, MF in house zero-waste apparel, etc).
how 2 allocate???
Deciding “who gets paid what” is one of the hardest things to do in decentralized organizations. We want to avoid top-down / centralized decision making, but also need to ensure that tokens are being allocated effectively to the right places and with the right incentives. As they say, “show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome”.
Every member of a community will have a different perspective on how the tokens should be allocated, there is no “objective truth” for how valuable certain contributions are. Instead, what we need is to blend together every members subjective opinion to form an “inter-subjective truth” of net contribution / impact. This is exactly what SourceCred and Coordinape do as the two most popular / effective tools for measuring and rewarding value creation in decentralized communities, and we have been using both of them to help form the token distribution.
However, we still need to decide as a community what metrics / behaviour / outcomes we want these tools to measure and incentivize – they are not a silver bullet.
So what basis/heuristics do we use to determine how we should allocate tokens? It’s actually pretty straightforward to figure out: give tokens to people for doing what you want them to do. A common naive approach is to distribute value based on how much time / hours people have spent. The problem with that is that it incentivizes people to “spend more time” instead of “create more value”, making it very easy to game and leading people to do the easiest work instead of the most important / impactful work.
Instead, what we want to optimize for is impact. Trying to “game” that metric results in people looking for and doing things that bring the most value to MF, which is exactly what we want.
e.g. the Delphi Digital podcast by Piers only took him a few hours of work, but it led to a huge amount of inbound interest in MF, appreciation in token price, new contributors, and connections with industry partners we are now working for our microfactories / p2p digiphysical marketplace / metaverse strategy etc.
In comparison, I’ve spent 10+ hours building a half-complete dapp for a feature we didn’t need / end up using. The impact / value it had for MF was probably 5% of the DD podcast, and therefore it should receive 5% as many tokens.
It’s important to keep this in mind when deciding how you allocate your GIVE in Coordinape – you want to make sure you are basing it on the relative important / value / impact of the contribution instead of “how much time/effort did they put in”.
For SourceCred, the allocation is determined by measuring contribution activity on Discord, governance forums, and manually added “initiatives” which describe the high level accomplishments / goals we achieved and who achieved them. The “initiatives” are each given a relative weight on the Fibonacci scale (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) where the more impactful a contribution was the higher weight it is assigned. Due to the nature of SourceCred’s algorithm, assigning the exact right numbers for individual contributions isn’t as important; as long as they are loosely correlated it can internally rebalance / cancel out the noise to output the “intersubjective net value creation score”. If you want to learn more about how it works you can read their docs.
I am proposing that we allocate the 32,200 tokens as follows:
|Allocate to contributors via SourceCred||10,000|
|Allocate to contributors via Coordinape||10,000|
|Allocate for governance participation rewards, twitter posts, etc||700|
|Amount to reserve for new contributor grants||1,500|
|Amount to carry forward to next ops distribution||10,000|
“contributor grants” is meant to be a small pool of ROBOT we can set aside in the multisig to front some capital for contributors who cant afford to wait uncertainly until the next token distribution, probably in amounts of 50-100 ROBOT per person once they are vetted as valuable contributors.
Carrying forward 10k tokens to the next ops distribution allows us to extend the distribution schedule to a $12.8m sales milestone, giving us more runway for the future. We can discuss adjusting those milestones further in another proposal because at the rate we are making sales our distribution timeline is going to run out much sooner than originally anticipated.
For the SC / Coordinape allocations, we are still waiting for people to finish allocating their GIVE and the numbers to be finalized, but the current tentative numbers are below. The numbers are the relative cred / GIVE that each contributor was assigned, not token amounts. Tokens will be distributed in proportion to cred / GIVE received. Note that these are not final / set in stone and are still subject to change until this proposal has passed via Snapshot vote. Please give your thoughts and feedback in this thread on if you think the distribution corresponds to how much value / impact each contributor has had. Remember to focus more on the relative distribution over specific numbers. There’s no way to get these things perfectly right, we just need them to be close enough so its not unfair (± 20% margin of error), and also to ensure that no one is gaming or exploiting the process.
|Contributor||GIVE Received||Contribution Bio|
|METADREAMER||179||Designed tokenomics / LP incentives, built the shop, architected Curation Game, dev on WSC and Vaunker drops, Discord, podcasts, operations.|
|Drew||150||MF Operations: Strategy, Partnerships, Marketing, Accounting, Customer Service. Chief Janitor and Dishwasher.|
|Weseeclearly||150||fashion R&D // microfactory whisperer // production partners // complete notion back-end for drops coord., hub, databases|
|Penguin||136||MultiSig, Stickers, WSC Coasters, Tokenomics, Training ppl, Sample coord., Intake calls, Client rel., Sushi Rel., MetaFest, Discord admin , support+mo|
|Felipe||83||Story, Coordination and Facilitation efforts including website text, newsletter, product description and the Creator Get Up program|
|Esteve||65||Design-related tasks coordinator:SN images, newsletter, product review, packaging, stickers, web,MF apparel,photos, necktag, minutes|
|Sergio||60||ROBOT Brand Guardian at MetaFactory / Design Lead / Newsletter Ninja / Instagram + Twitter Art Director / Packaging Inspiring / Audiovisual,|
|CryptoAccord||56||Utility assists, process/tool streamline, content creation., Proposal: HODL Rewards x Engagement x Seasons,|
|Jin||45||I’ve been making avatar wearables of Metafactory merch that are compatible with VRM avatars + FBX exports for the VR store.|
|Sinkas||35||CV wearables for Coldie’s t-shirts, YFI Hoodie, Clarendon’s t-shirt, 26 masks. Factory and wicked sunday club builds. Active multisigner|
|Jush||17||Product developers that work on drops with communities from design, sourcing, sampling and manufacturin. On discord we are @anando and @Urna|
|NiftyFifty||16||Technician in training. Active answering questions on Discord and, first and foremost, having a lot of fun with the MetaFactory Community|
|CPTNskeletor||12||Community engagement/GIF wrestler, Customer support and mind reader , Newbies favorite channel linker, MF Rank: YUNG GRASSHOPPER ,|
|DogeMaxi||11||Initial framework research for the creator game, identified how to inject required crypto & data libs for web, iOS and android monorepo.|
|0xJoshua||9||I’ve been hunting. Tweeting out MF good will and making introductions to teams/products I want to see make MF drops.|
|dysbulic||5||• Migrating the NFT UI from ant-design to chakra-ui, • Deploying a test ERC-1155 to Rinkeby, • Viewing previously created NFTs using TheGraph|
Its pretty cool to see that both tools resulted in almost the same relative rankings of contributors!
I will be updating this post with aggregate numbers on total ROBOT each contributor will be receiving later (assuming we are allocating 20k ROBOT as described above), but this should serve as a good basis for the community to critique and give feedback on any part of this proposal before it goes to official vote. We can conduct some soft polls as well to make it easier to measure sentiment and adjust proposal as necessary.
Here’s the aggregate distribution of ROBOT based on the SourceCred and Coordinape scores above, totalling to 20,000 ROBOT:
Should we change the amount of ROBOT to roll forward into future Ops distributions? (currently 10k ROBOT) - INVALID POLL DUE TO BAD WORDING, VOTE AGAIN IN THE ONE BELOW
- Keep as is
- Allocate more to future distributions
- Allocate more to contributors (SourceCred / Coordinape)
Should we roll forward some of the ROBOT from this distro into future Ops distributions?
- Yes, roll forward 10k ROBOT to future distributions
- No, distribute all 32k to contributors
Do the relative scores for SourceCred and Coordinape correlate with amount of impact / value created?
- Yes, both are accurate
- Yes, but SourceCred is more accurate
- Yes, but Coordinape is more accurate
- No, one or both of them are not accurate (reply with your concerns)