Proposal #8: 2021 Ops Distribution

Official Vote:


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.

the numbers

I am proposing that we allocate the 32,200 tokens as follows:

Where How Much
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.

Coordinape Allocation
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
Kiba 28 null
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 :slight_smile:
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
SourceCred Allocation
Contributor Cred Earned
Drew 1,937
weseeclearly 1,106
penguin 666
Felipe 446
EsteveFLOC 440
SergioFLOC 348
jin 333
kiba 285
Sinkas 190
boomboxhead 181
piers 161
CryptoAccord 152
Francesco 147
Rickard 107
Coldie 106
DogeMaxi 102
Magnus 87
0xJoshua 77
Billy-Rae 74
CarlosForefront 69
Danielle 67
Lucas 63
dysbulic 62
carlfarterson 59
Rolf 54
alecdalel 53
CPTNskeletor 50
Sky 47
NiftyFifty 43
engwind 40
YuurinBee 34
volt46 32
Van 30
AATIFstudios 26
Yalor 24
CryptoDiplo 23
BiggiePoppins 23
wloka 21
CoinMentor 20
Hannes 18
victorrortvedt 17
kennyboss-crypto 16
coopahtroopa 16
Aidan—LTF 16
pet3rpan 15

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:

ROBOT Distribution
Contributor ROBOT allocation
Drew 3,324.04
weseeclearly 2,505.13
penguin 1,941.40
Felipe 1,223.42
EsteveFLOC 1,045.60
SergioFLOC 909.71
jin 753.49
kiba 544.71
Sinkas 517.68
boomboxhead 177.47
piers 157.93
CryptoAccord 676.47
Francesco 144.36
Rickard 105.60
Coldie 104.33
DogeMaxi 204.52
Magnus 85.61
Jush 161
0xJoshua 160.64
BillyRae 73.08
CarlosForefront 67.66
Danielle 65.79
Lucas 61.94
dysbulic 108.26
carlfarterson 58.41
Rolf 53.19
alecdalel 51.43
CPTNskeletor 161.62
Sky 46.16
NiftyFifty 193.91
engwind 39.48
YuurinBee 33.20
volt46 31.23
Van 29.82
AATIFstudios 25.65
Yalor 23.13
CryptoDiplo 22.57
BiggiePoppins 22.24
wloka 20.12
Hannes 18.16
victorrortvedt 16.94
kennybosscrypto 15.55
coopahtroopa 15.28
pet3rpan 15.15
Kastrye 14.06
j1mmy 13.63
scottrepreneur 13.60
mattymatt 12.47
diegoprime 10.59
TwistedVacancy 10.35
WMPeaster 10.17
DaiHard 9.69
fonship 8.98
jamesyoung 8.91
Afro 8.62
Cybersage 7.80
Santiago 7.68
Am1r 7.32
Corey 7.22
LeoCheng 7.04
Frits 7.04
0xMaki 6.90
poocart 5.18
Callum 5.05
Tatey180 4.95
dekanbro 4.45
samkuhlmann 4.34
Anando 4.29
TheBuddha 3.97
HardCole 3.75
audsssy 3.10
vengist 2.94
robodomo 2.86
Urna 2.62
DavidHoffman 2.19
BulgeyPants 1.96
sungbumz 1.65
Danial 1.18
Keb 1.10
CliffBo 0.96
Zerowomanzero 0.78
sudo 0.70
ryanseanadams 0.41
ShariaLawyer 0.35
barrelman 0.17
Santa 0.13
NFTMerchant 0.01
TOTAL 19,999.57

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)

0 voters

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

0 voters

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)

0 voters

1 Like

Impact is definitely a hard thing to measure and allowing for a generous margin of error is the right way to go. I don’t think there’s a perfect decentralized way to go about streamlining the distributions.

The fact that both methods resulted in a more or less identical rankings of contributors is great, as I believe it does reflect the amount of work everyone has put in relatively well.

I voted to carry the 10k to the next distributions, but I don’t think that approaching a milestone sooner than anticipated is a valid reason. My reasoning was that distributing 32k ROBOT at current price while our liquidity pool is ~2,5M would be a bit risky, and would have a huge impact in the event of heavy profit-taking from contributors (which is definitely not frowned upon - just something that can happen).

How often will we be doing ops distributions from now on?


We have proposed doing ops distributions on a monthly basis moving forward - or at a minimum, in line with the buyer reward distribution cadence. I think any less frequently than this makes the allocations harder as they encompasses too much time/effort. Smaller, better defined periods is the goal.


Thank you for compiling the data and for helping bring ops distribution to a resolution.

I think that the coordinape does a good job of capturing current and recent effort but the numbers were a bit controlled. We had a few people that only distributed their give to a single person and I believe some that did not have give to distribute. In that way I think the numbers are close to accurate but also a bit based on popularity of a select group.

My larger issue is with the SourceCred distribution. The SC numbers are based on data that is difficult to measure and was measured subjectively and the allocation for the initiatives does not have a clear mapping for value.

I privately raised concerns about the ops distribution but I do not think that the issues that I raised were considered, especially with regards to the SC section.

I think that more frequent ops distributions will help resolve future issues but much of the work ops does is not measurable by data and goes into customer service, brand ambassadorship and technical support for designs beyond the design itself.

The core team has had various considerations for work such as salaries or early distributions that were not considered for this ops data.

In conclusion Coordinape went okay, SC not so much. Thank you for the opportunity to work with MetaFactory for over the past year, it has been a crazy ride and a ton of work. I would please ask you to reconsider my value over the past year, especially when we were getting started. I am a Robot Soldier and have been sweating and bleeding for MetaFactory and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.


Thanks for bringing these issues up, Penguin. I never would have known unless you said something.

I absolutely agree that more frequent ops distributions will help resolve this, because human nature favors the more recent experience. Earlier work is minimized to the most recent work. Is there a way to separate these epochs out?

1 Like

Thanks for sharing penguin, I’ve updated the post above with the aggregate amounts of ROBOT to be distributed to each contributor.

Your allocation is ~50% of my allocation, which essentially means that the value / impact of my contributions over the last 6 months are 2x the value / impact of your contributions. Let me know what you think about that balance and if it seems fair. Personally, I think its pretty fair considering that MF has been my primary full time focus and I’m responsible for most of the critical infrastructure and high level strategy / tokenomics.

I also want to highlight that your contributions have primarily been as a technician, which has its own allocation that you will also be receiving ROBOT for in addition to these rewards, unlike everyone else in the top 10 (besides weseeclearly who also did technician work in addition to their ops/strategy/r&d work).

As for the recency bias, the SourceCred calculation is based on the entire history of activity in MetaFactory, not just recent contributions. I do agree that Coordinape data might have more recency bias because its based more on people’s subjective experiences and some of the contributors have joined only in the last few months, but I don’t think its too big of a deal since the majority of this allocation comes from sales milestones we reached just a few months ago, and all of the top 10 contributors have been contributing from before that. The sales have been exponentially increasing, so the token distribution isn’t going to be linear with time, its also going to be weighted to more recent months.

The fact that you didn’t take a part of your compensation in fiat unlike weseeclearly, Felipe, and the FLOC team is accounted for in SourceCred with a contribution weight matching how much cred I received for all the dev work I did as the sole engineer in MF and also weseeclearly’s work in growing our fashion production network / partnership with Rickard, etc. FWIW Drew and I have also been working with zero fiat compensation, but we aren’t getting extra cred for it, only you are.

I privately raised concerns about the ops distribution but I do not think that the issues that I raised were considered, especially with regards to the SC section.

Your concerns were addressed early in those conversations when I added the special contribution in SourceCred for you contributing without fiat compensation, your original score was much lower before that. The Coordinape numbers are a result of everyones subjective allocations after your concerns were heard by almost everyone who had 100 GIVE to allocate. There’s no amount of considering that I can do to change those numbers because it’s based on a democratic process, I’m just collecting and sharing the results.

Even if it seems unfair to you individually, it’s important to trust in the process as it represents the will of the community which comes above all else. e.g. I personally think that my contributions have had more impact that the distribution suggests, but I’m ok with that since we based it on a process and the cohesion of the community will generate more long term value for everyone including me than any additional tokens I would get by pushing against it.

I hope this gives some clarity on the allocation, I know these conversations are hard and I hate to have to be “that guy”, but its extremely important for the sanctity of the community and responsibility to the token holders to base our token distribution on the outcome of a process, so thats why I can’t in good conscience justify making special accommodations for people given all the facts above, it goes against the ethos of credible neutrality.

Considering the numbers displayed from SourceCred and previous iterations the number has fluctuated significantl. My specific internal proposal request was for 2000 robot for the past 15 months of work. The SourceCred distribution is entirely subjective. I my opinion it does not match expectations and my personal cred in this process has trended downwards since I raised concerns.

Our token was work under $7 as of 4 months ago. During my over one year of service I believe the support, marketing and brand ambassadorship is worth well over my requested grant. I believe I have been a critical component in our success.

My requests are not based on current token price but based on previous grants extended to partners. I proposed assuming only a 16K robot distribution and requested 2k of the other 16k that you said was not going to be distributed and a path for allocating that robot for future contributors.

I am surprised at the response and friction. I make no claims about how important my work is verses your work. I do everything within my ability and limits at all times. My contributions are significant and have been asking for more transparency for the past year. It is now put to public opinion without my work grant which is what I call my consideration for the last 15 months.

I will abide by whatever the community decides and appreciate the opportunity to present my case. I propose:

-16000 robot gets distributed to the Coordinape circle
-700 Robot for Twitter posts
-2000 for new contributor grants
-2000 Robot grant for myself for the last 15months of services
-11500 Robot reserved for future ops distribution

Penguin, I put together numbers based on what you’re proposing here. We’ve had a lot of back and forth, and may be assuming a background of context, calculation, and vocabulary that isn’t shared by everyone evaluating this.

Penguin's Proposal:
Contributor GIVE Received ROBOT allocation
Penguin 136 4059 (2059 + 2000 “Grant”)
Drew 150 2271
Weseeclearly 150 2271
Felipe 83 1256
Esteve 65 984
Sergio 60 908
CryptoAccord 56 848
Jin 45 681
Sinkas 35 530
Kiba 28 424
Jush 17 257
NiftyFifty 16 242
CPTNSkeletor 12 182
DogeMaxi 11 167
0xJoshua 9 136
dysbulic 5 76
TOTAL 1057 18000

My personal vote is to move forward with the numbers in the original proposal [as authored by Metadreamer], sharing the weight between Sourecred and Coordinape equally. I believe that, together, they capture more nuance than either alone. Hard (“heart”) numbers: Sourcecred picks up the contributions of 72 fellow robots :robot:, who would not receive any $ROBOT if we only rely on Coordinape. It is important that we build toward a scalable, repeatable, and reliable process going forward, especially when it broadens the web of value flow around our entire community in all the ways that we participate.

We are not the only DAO facing distribution woes :wink: By using a spread of tools like Sourcecred and Coordinape, we are contributing to their improvement, diversifying the landscape, and directly shaping the future of decentralized work. I believe the answer requires constant fluid rebalancing through specialized tools, that cover each others’ blind spots.

I also want to reiterate that the Sourcecred numbers above are not purely automatic. The baseline is formed by an entire survey of our Discord interactions, which offers some counterbalance to the recency-bias of Coordinape; meanwhile, Metadreamer has also manually added weight from the #props and #did-a-thing channels, as well as accounted for fiat compensation.


Thank you for adding numbers for the proposal. And for acknowledging that this has been an ongoing discussion.

For additional context the full robot allocation was not discussed until after I repeatedly questioning why the 16k robot distribution did not match the robot distribution chart agreed upon for ops milestone payments.

Other contributors and core memebrs were either given substantial monthly cash payments or were previously considered in ops distribution. I question a process which values my work for almost a year less rewarding than my customer reward and is directly attacked as being “less valuable.” I have proven to be a MF robot soldier and consistently made money for the organization, with the promise that I would be taken care of. Instead I found another game stacked against the people and claiming dev work is far superior to what I do. As a full stack software dev for over a decade, I confidential say my work in MF is just as highly skilled.

I risked a lot by voicing my opinion and have have had my work marginalized. I am a team player and have been always been an all star Robot. I have supported MetaFactory before we even had a discord at the genesis medium posts about Brand Factories level. I laid and ran our first sample and even generated all of the images used for our face masks.

I have been met with challenges and want to work through issues. I said my peace and appreciate the space to speak freely. Thank you for this amazing opportunity these last 15 months and for any support that I get. I am not fighting, only trying to claim fair work for my services. I have concerns with this distribution but will be happy with whatever the community decides.

1 Like

I appreciate the open dialog here. The conversation and transparency are the only way we are going to improve and shape compensation models for decentralized projects and working groups. While I do see improvements can be made, I believe that what has been proposed so far and the discussions that have taken place to get us here do fairly represent the contributions of everyone involved.

I also believe that the combination of SourceCred, Coordinate and MF-specific weighting adjustments are a great baseline and starting place for measuring ops contribution based on impact / value provided. These solutions aren’t perfect, but in my opinion, they have done a good job of establishing a workable and fair baseline.

Specific to your situation @penguin, I don’t think anyone ever trivialized your contributions or intentionally sandbagged you. If you truly feel anyone has acted maliciously or out of line, please raise the concern and we will address it. That said, I don’t think such comments are fair in this context because they paint a different picture from the open dialog and discussion that has taken place up to this point. You raised your concerns and from my perspective, they were acknowledged and discussed amongst the core team for a few weeks prior to involving the greater community. That said, in order to establish a transparent and objective baseline, we needed to leverage the tools available and include the greater DAO in the conversation. We also made adjustments to weighting based to your feedback. In fact, from my understanding, the proposed distribution numbers have netted out very close to the number you originally expected and proposed for yourself (~2K ROBOT).

Short of saying, ‘Penguin should receive an additional X ROBOT because he has requested it’, I am not sure how to reach a solution that considers everyone else’s contribution in equal measure. I also believe that such actions set dangerous precedent because the decision isn’t rooted in any formal, objective approach. Perhaps, however, you have a more specific proposal for how we bridge the perceived gap here?


The only people that got any fiat payments were the ones who otherwise couldn’t afford to work on MetaFactory and we would not have been able to bring them on at all. The monthly payments were not “substantial” at all, just the minimum amount they needed to pay their rent and keep their lights on. No one who could afford to work on MF without fiat compensation got paid anything, and you are the only one receiving additional ROBOT for not taking fiat compensation.

You also received ROBOT in the previous ops distribution, more than even Felipe who was doing more actual ops work rather than technician work (which, as mentioned before, has its own reward tier). If you had a problem with that distribution it should’ve been brought up then, there was ample time and many iterations of feedback we had where you could’ve raised these concerns. I don’t think it’s fair to critique past distributions after they already happened to justify getting more tokens in the future.

Hey MF crew, I’m excited to see things moving forward on the governance side of MetaFactory.

Hope to get more time to dive into this stuff moving forward, in the meantime I stopped by to read through this thread and I am looking for some documentation of @penguin’s work that makes up for the 2000 extra ROBOT requested above ?

As of this thread I see a “Grant” request, but I don’t know what it’s for ?

To @burningfiatpoint here:

Short of saying, ‘Penguin should receive an additional X ROBOT because he has requested it’, I am not sure how to reach a solution that considers everyone else’s contribution in equal measure. I also believe that such actions set dangerous precedent because the decision isn’t rooted in any formal, objective approach. Perhaps, however, you have a more specific proposal for how we bridge the perceived gap here?

I’m not sure how we as a community could grant this amount of ROBOT ( currently valued @ $100K+ ) to a single contributor for unspecified work :sweat_smile:

I may not know this “ins & outs” of MetaFactory operations but I think the allocations that were initially proposed look really fair to me. Let us keep in mind that this project still has so much upside and many more milestones to hit.

Saving some of that distribution will definitely provide more opportunities for contributors who will show up looking to contribute to MF in the future, so I agree with that.

One last thing, how do you get included in the Coordinape experiment ? I feel like I must have missed that, because I see others are on there for doing the same thing I do :smile: hunt for collabs and shill the shit out of MF :loudspeaker:

Any thoughts here ?


I don’t think it is unspecified work, but now we’re getting a bit further away from my understanding of the process.

So we’re going with a mix of Coordinape + sourcecred + MD tinkering based on discord “props + did a thing” information?

What are the date cut-offs for work that is included in this operations distribution proposal?

1 Like

You can DM me your ETH address and I can add you to the next one! If you have the member roles in discord via collabland you should be able to see the channels where we onboarded people into Coordinape.

The props and didathing is what goes into SourceCred, the tinkering was just configuring SourceCred appropriately for our needs.

Its just 10k through Coordinape and 10k through SourceCred

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I got confused by the updated numbers. For the final question - what’s the date range on this ops distro? Does this cut off at like May 31 - or are current projects being worked on included?

Current projects are not included in this, the cutoff isn’t strict but the next Coordinape epoch will be for June contributions

1 Like

Gotcha, I didn’t mean unspecified altogether I meant in the context of this thread :sweat_smile:

Sorry if there is another place for a summary of this work done by people in the community, but I don’t have access to anything but this thread at the moment.

1 Like

Note: My opinion doesn’t really matter compared to people to whom MetaFactory and ROBOT are their actual “job” because this doesn’t affect my livelihood at all.

Some quick questions

  • what are the exact dates that this distro covers? $50k milestone was around last May I’d guess so we are reviewing contributions from 05-2020 to 06-2021 here?
  • Is there a list of activities that qualifies as “Ops”? Would help clear up confusion on what should be considered for these contributions. As it will change over time (e.g. once curation game is out) it will also help people keep track.

SC and Ape is perfect combination of tools. I like seeing the long list of contributors on SC and knowing it comes from wide variety of activities with any effort/skill level, while Ape targets high value activities and is higher signal to noise. Using both and splitting rewards between both scoring systems is best I think.

If we should be taking that into account any salaries, designer rewards, and other distros during this time period it would be helpful to see those records (if they exist like FLOC’s).

Another aspect of recency bias is token price at distribution. We aren’t explicitly giving dollar amounts to people but the amount of total tokens in this distro is affected by ROBOT price since we are only proposing half the tokens. This means that earlier contributors probably would have gotten more tokens if we had done distros earlier. I think @METADREAMER said in discord that SC is time-weighted to early contributions but I don’t think this fully captures the difference. For example at Index Coop I got 1,000 INDEX tokens for working like 10 hours in their first month yet now there are contributors at Index Coop that have worked part/full time for 3-6 months that still haven’t earned 1,000 INDEX despite doing more work because the token price has 30xed so they get less tokens. This isn’t in favor of one side or the other re:Penguin but it hasn’t been mentioned yet and only matters if we are denominating ROBOT rewards based on USD price (which we somewhat are in this proposal.)

I would prefer reserving a bit more for future contributors (15k vs 10k HNS) to give us more runway to recruit new community members. We have a lot of ROBOT in the GEAR pool but that feels locked and not spendable by the DAO to me but if we do want to use GEAR for rewards when Ops budget runs out then I’d be fine with faster release schedule.


That’s correct, although all the milestones were hit more recently in 2021 (100k was last week of December), so the majority of the ROBOT is still for more recent contributions.

No official list because the scope of activities is ever expanding, the only thing we specified in the past was that design / technician contributions are not a part of the ops rewards. It would be good to make an official list though now that contributor base is expanding. Off the top of my head:

  • Tokenomics, incentive design, overall strategy and execution
  • Dev work (frontend / backend / shop / contracts / distribution scripts / NFTs / bugfixes and maintenance, etc) - I was the sole dev in MF until a week ago
  • Community engagement / cultivation, content creation, social media, newsletter
  • Bizdev (taking calls, having meetings, coordinating partnerships, going on podcasts, etc)
  • Customer support, shop / order management, setting up and releasing products
  • Branding, design work, 3d modeling, etc
  • weseeclearly received 15k USD over the last 5 months (3k/mo) to cover rent/food/bills. As of June they are only being compensated via ROBOT
  • Felipe received a total of 7k USD over the course of 3 months at the end of 2021 to pay for rent / bills / food
  • FLOC received ~25k USD since we engaged them, ~2500 USD / mo which was their breakeven / base cost to keep the lights on for their studio / other employees

All of these were given to cover basic needs of the contributors, most of which who came on before ROBOT had well established price / liquidity. Back then there wasn’t enough certainty in the value of ROBOT for people to work for only tokens when they had hard expenses they need to cover. Moving forward, no one is going to be getting fiat compensation, its all going through ROBOT now (aside from 3rd party service providers / freelancers from Upwork).

Given the numbers and situation in which we gave the fiat compensation, I don’t think we need to heavily handicap ROBOT rewards for those that received it since it basically screws over people who couldn’t afford to work for only tokens even if they wanted to.

Its still 2/3 of the tokens, not half. Although price appreciation is somewhat of a factor, the main one is how soon we hit these milestones. We didn’t expect to generate so many sales so soon before the contributor base expanded. Even if the price was $10-20, I would still want to reallocate because we are at that inflection point of bringing on a ton of new contributors.

We also have the TBD tokens which we can decide to allocate to ops budget

1 Like

One model that might help for future grants is to create some core members that will have a stable team (anyone approved by a vote by the community that has provided some work can be a core member). and the rest of the funds can be allocated via sourceCreed and coordinape to the community in a form of grants. A tool like Trello or Github projects can help to track tasks and see who is doing, in the end, core members might have a more easy way to send the GIVE tokens by looking at this board instead of trying to remember.

1 Like