[Discussion] Adjustable emissions Cap

However we make look at it, there still hasn’t been a data analysis on how emissions are affecting the price of Grape, I feel we need to understand how much of this emissions is contributing to the decline in price of grape and no one is talking about it, I think a cap is needed to regulate price, we want to see a steady growth of the token in the long run and how do we achieve that if The emissions are not well regulated. I feel we shouldn’t lay too much emphasis on the emissions yet, we’re yet to see The Grape work place which is meant to serve as a source of revenue yet to be fully implemented. I Feel we should do everything at minimal, ​afterall we’re here cos this is our community not just because of the emissions alone.

1 Like

I’m not necessarily in favor of a cap, no. I think a cap is only needed, as long as there is no tiered emissions model, or rather a method of measuring merit uniformly, applied by all subDAOs, that can be used to calculate emissions. If we do the calculation per subDAO, as it is now, you can’t really measure the time and effort invested by any member, especially not in relation to members of other subDAOs.

A cap makes it more simple, yes, but it wouldn’t be needed if we find a way to factor in that a member with two Skill Roles can’t produce for both roles what a member with just one Skill Role can when said member works 24/7 in the capacity of this one role. Hence the idea I mentioned above. And this totally works with tiered methods for emission allocation.

1 Like

If a subDAO wants a cap, I’d say go ahead. How they organize their emissions should be totally up to them imo, and totally independent of what other subDAOs do. I thought this thread was about the universal cap that is currently in place, and in any case that’s the thing that I’ve been arguing against.

1 Like

You think about how the price of emission affect grape, but you forget that people worked for it, and there’s no Data that people even sold off, someone who holds 3-4 roles could earn as much as people who hold 2roles. Someone with 3-4 roles has more responsibilities, but earn same thing as someone with 2-3 roles based on caps.

As @Whale_s_Friend said incentivising holders of the emissions is the best.
I would also support vesting of emissions if possible.

2 Likes

I imagine a list can be brought up of who this would actually impact. Is that data readily available for us to find, maybe someone can point me in that direction? I assume only a handful.

Extremely in favor of the vesting of emissions as whales mentioned and/or finding some way to combine it with Paws formula where the modifier (or an additional) would instead be vested instead of outright paying the lump sum.

we’ve enabled this now - no longer an issue :smiley:

It is not easy or even possible to monitor everyones work and reward them accordingly. I have been trying to police the researcher ranks and it seams I am the only one doint it. Removing the cap is a vertical approach were having the cap is a horizontal approach. Decentralization in general has to do with horizontal policies. I understand you are among the most high earning persons in the DAO and you deserve it well. Imo instead of removing the cap we should focus on the monetary policy of $GRAPE. Instead of removing the emissions cap the uprise of the price could bring same results?

3 Likes

Yeah we can’t monitor perfectly. But I think you would agree that our 3 tier system much more accurately reflects the contributions of our members than a flat system would.

Can you give a clear reason why there should be a cap, what exactly it accomplishes, and what problem it is solving?

Yeah it’s no secret I’m talking my own book here because I am capped. Nevertheless, I think I am approaching this 100% objectively. No one has yet to provide a clear articulation of why we should have a cap. I keep asking the same question. :man_shrugging:

I’m all for working on improving the tokenomics of GRAPE, as we’ve discussed privately. But they definitely don’t bring the same results. One only benefits capped members. The other benefits all GRAPE holders. I’m for both.

2 Likes

we can’t monitor yeah, that’s why we have subDAO who keep track of all these. you know well how people contribute on the research side cause that’s ur area… keeping track should be done by the subDAO.

2 Likes

I know you are for both Durden I would never imply the opposite! The answer for me is the centralization and the verticality of the descision making when we remove the cap. Im curious to hear the rest of the community. Sounds like one of the most important votes so far.

If emissions were unlimited each epoch, perhaps this wouldn’t be an issue. However, there are a limited amount of emissions every epoch that constitute the pool of emissions available, which implies there should be a cap, because in the future, as users accumulate greater stake, any model trying to dynamically define emissions (i.e. if it were % based on the reward, instead of % of a total pool) could collectively earn more than the allotted or available emissions, in aggregate.

Using the recent assumptions, below is the logic I prescribe to this for my own understanding and hope it helps:

  • Assume there are 100 users.
  • 30 Holding 100K Grape (3M GRAPE)
  • 30 Holding 50K Grape (1.5M GRAPE)
  • 40 Holding 20K Grape (0.8M GRAPE)
  • Aggregate User Holdings across 100 Users: 5.3M GRAPE

On aggregate, assume all 100 users are productive & deserve maximum emissions, or using the initial post, each user is eligible 70K each = 7M GRAPE. Total Emissions per Epoch are limited to 5M GRAPE afaik.

Thus, Total Emissions must be capped, and there’s an inherent need to do so for granular limits per user.

That’s my 2 GRAPES :wink:

2 Likes

Maybe I’m just not understanding, but I’m confused.

However, there are a limited amount of emissions every epoch that constitute the pool of emissions available, which implies there should be a cap

This doesn’t follow. To clarify, when I say there should be no cap, I’m saying members should be able to receive all emissions from all the subDAOs they belong to. Since how much each subDAO receives is controlled by the main DAO, and the main DAO is just divvying up 5M GRAPE per epoch, there is no way for members to receive GRAPE in a way that would mean more than 5M was distributed in total. This is enforced at the level of the main DAO, and it true regardless of whether there are caps on individuals or not.

I don’t understand where you get the 70k figure. The max an individual can receive is dependent on the subDAOs they belong to and their emission structure. For example, I belong to community creators and researchers. The max distribution for a community creator is 30k, and the max for researchers is variable each month but last month it was about 17k. So the max I can receive is 47k. But not everyone is in the highest tiers in those subDAOs, so even without an individual cap they won’t all receive 47k. Again, regardless of whether there’s a cap, it’s impossible for the total emissions to surpass 5M.

2 Likes

@DeanMachine - I think what may be something we could do is approach the overall emissions allocation logic to the Global limit or constraint here.

This might mean we defined Total Epoch Emissions per Period and then allocate those emissions as a % of the Total Emissions, rounded to the nearest 10, 100 or 1,000. In other words, should this be working backward from the available Emissions per Epoch, and generate a % that could be translated into an % APY or APR. Alternatively, it could be capped per Emissions Type (i.e. Total Skill Role Emissions = Capped % of Total Emissions)

Today, we have SubDAOs that have a certain amount of GRAPE from Epoch Emissions allocated to assign to their respective SubDAO & SkillRole Members.

Perhaps instead of defining the fixed amount to output, it should be a % of the available Emissions Allocation/Total Number of Group Members, and, even introduce a cap on the % or reduction factor if Holdings > X Amount of Grape.

More to come…

I’m also now looking at “# of grapes in voting”. Could be a target to aim for in calculating some of this

1 Like

The Numbers are all hypothetical calculations - please don’t take this as a denial of your point, I’m just sharing a viewpoint

1 Like

I mean I’m happy to be shown a reason to have a cap, but no one’s given one.

Just so it’s clear, what I’m saying is that the scenario you pictured, where we somehow say members are eligible for emissions that would make the total greater than 5M, is impossible regardless of whether we have a cap or not.

2 Likes

Just to chip in, if the cap is to be removed then I’d suggest vesting it.(if that’ll work)

I gave you my reasoning for a cap when i had suggested it – we needed a way to normalize distribution when there was no strict role assignment

today, i think the cap can be used to steer governance power to more active users. Looking at the existing voting Grape deposited (1.25m), there could be a concern that the community will lose control of voting if that number is not stedily increasing with the community emissions

We could cap non-voting members to make sure that more of those emissions are going to active community members.

1 Like

Right, thanks for that. I replied that that made sense at that time, but not anymore, and explained why.

Other ideas are being proposed, but they are separate from whether the current cap should be kept. Each idea should be evaluated on its own merits. I think step one is to remove the cap because it no longer serves its original purpose. Then we can talk about the problems we face, the goals we want to achieve, and the mechanisms that could help make them happen.

I’m fine with capping non-voting members. That would be a way to essentially require that you participate in governance to receive your max emissions. But imo this would make more sense not as a cap but as a % penalty for all members, i.e. if you don’t participate in governance, you receive X% less than you otherwise would have. With a cap, we only incentivize those with high emissions to participate in governance. But don’t we want to equally incentivize everyone to participate in governance?

3 Likes

I am trying to collect as much data as needed for this discussion

Ive got the following ready

Community members ranked by emissions received last month
Community members ranked by activity in the server since i enabled the bot (i think 5 days ago)
Community members ranked by activity in Discourse

Is there any reason we shouldnt share this data? Is there any other MEASURABLE data points we should look to add?

2 Likes