1. Proposal Purpose:
PART 2 of 2: Discuss Models for Emissions, Tokenomics, & Meritocratic constructs to initiate a broad Community review of the overall or specific approaches to managing emissions, rewards, key metrics, value contributions, and reciprocating incentives in a fair, just, and synergistic manner. The expected focus of this discussion is to ideate, brainstorm, identify, and define a set of ideas that can help guide a review of concepts, like incentives, rewards, or emissions that would be optimal for the GRAPE community members & contributors. The expectation of this discussion is to arrive at a set of reasonable assumptions or proposed models for further discussion, review and or consideration to determine whether to keep the current model, augment, change, or replace the current model(s) in place.
Ultimately, this discussion spans areas of consideration from how to strengthen the meritocratic model or alter the way the meritocratic ethos is maintained, while also looking to find ideasthat enable the community to propose or suggest alternative approaches related to tokenomics & emissions that strengthen the GRAPE DAO & Community ability to most appropriately reward/incentivize contributors by assigning greater voting power or other means.
Cont. PART 1 of 2 [Discussion] Emissions Model Review: Part 1 of 2 - Metrics & Methods
2. Grape Proposal Overview:
Predefined Emissions pools, allocated to SubDAOs, Skill Roles, other Roles and performance tracking based on Activity, Production, and existing defined view of “Value”.
NOTE: “New” approaches are not necessarily focused on removing or discontinuing existing models if found to compliment an optimal future framework. Collaboration, contribution, and reciprocation based on the merits of individuals and groups to derive “value” for the community is a baseline key principle that currently exists and should continue to be expected.
New Approach Considerations for Review & Discussion:
Tokenomics & Emissions Model - Meritocratic Rewards and Reciprocated Incentives to promote activity in core strategic areas, whether defined or undefined.
Define “Value” (look to establish Metrics for guidance on thoughts or frameworks)
Confirm Rewards & Incentives within Model (i.e. Dynamic Pool or Pools defined or decided by Metrics from Part 1 of 2)
Outline Procedures - Implement and Execute Procedures to facilitate & document for redundancy. (Simplify when possible but consider risks/attack vectors)
- Mechanisms to Manage/Execute (I.e. $GRAPE, Streams, Grape-Backed SubDAO Tokens, Documentation, checks/balances to course correct, etc)
Community Groups & Individuals, such as, DAO, SubDAOs, Boards/Councils/Committees, Skill Roles, Participants and/or Contributors
4. Costs/Resource Requirements:
One Point I think we should identify and review is the concept of Pools and review how to make Emissions more dynamic.
Current Emissions Pools are defined at each SubDAO level and allocated at the discretion of the SubDAOs to skill role members. Pools are static, predefined, and can only be increased by request today, applying to future emissions. While this is a “good” model, it leaves potential gaps where contributors aren’t connecting rewards to the overall contributions to Grape and/or can overlook the relative contribution of members by limiting them to a predefined allocation.
Dynamic Pool model would require tying the available emissions to a set of metrics that would define a Total Pool and divide the allocation dynamically according to key metrics and methods defined in Part 1 of 2.
A minimum base emission could be defined to make it “fair” for those that are actively participating and producing, but may not be immediately considered as “value” generating.
The maximum excess emission could be defined by the total contributions to the treasury, by Group (I.e. SubDAO) and participation rewards implemented for strategically mission critical functions for individual action (I.e. Realms Governance)
This is a preliminary suggestion on 1 area that could be changed to address gaps in the current model, but will be rearticulated in a broader suggestion I intend to post here.
Ooof, Dynamic Pool model sounds great, I’m sure it will be no small feat to get emission metrics established across all SubDAO’s but I would perhaps optimistically say it would be a very worth while goal to work towards.
I would see total contributions to the treasury as potentially difficult to define. Certain DAO’s have direct earnings associated with paid services while others which may have more of a community focus likely have greater outgoings than in, but then again may be helping drive more membership onboarding, thinking Events in particualy here (contention around prize pools, and other outgoings towards events perhaps a seperate issue that’s been raised deserving of its own topic im sure).
Dynamic Pool with a baseline and an upper bound sounds good.
The central problem is that we have to determine what value is for our organisation and how we measure it in different contexts. Like The RipTyde mentioned some subDAOs are involved in onboarding members, others could sell services.
In a classic business they often work with internal prices to govern interaction between different business units. Maybe that’s something we could use and mold to our needs.
We could also align personal and overall subDAO incentives - like if one user earns for the subDAO then a small part of that is also redistributed to all other subDAO members. A mechanic like this could promote cooperation and bringing a subDAO closer together.
Yeah we’re seeing the likes of the NFT Council receiving initial seed funds so they can more easily operate and purchas NFT’s through a Squads controled wallet to make some long term investments on Grapes behalf, while afaik I know they haven’t been talking about profit sharing kickbacks I could imagine something like that could be on the cards in future and I know its something Researchers (or at least a few members there in) are eyeing w. early talk/thoughts of trying to do something in a similar vein.
Emissions Model Definition: Pools
Currently SubDAOs manage and maintain their own respective pools. Pools could be assigned to initiatives, not groups and later allocated to the Groups accordingly. Decisions on what, how much, and when, align with the metrics conversations outlined.
Below is an outline of the Pools we should review and can define for each of the respective Strategic Initiatives and the Incentive it supports.