This is the doc from the workshop:
Let’s continue the discussion w comments below.
Took a glance at the newest sheet and see that ill need some time to really go over it. For example, I couldnt find a row that represented the amount of grape people received from emissions over time (which I think is a very important variable)
4 Likes
The way that people seemed to interpret this during the call was based on what you did with emissions (staking, selling, etc.). But we could also include say unstaking. Otherwise this might fall into the $GRAPE Balance category (lines 2 and 3 of the summary).
What do you think?
1 Like
One of the sources should be simply “grape emissions received” – this is probably the most important reputation metric associated with the token
Another would be “grape emissions received minus held” – this is less important but is an interesting way to look at the holder’s perception of governance power
Time is the biggest factor that is missing – I would suggest the following measurements
- Time holding grape – from the first moment the token account was creted
- Time receiving emissions - from the first time they received emissions from a “source”
- Time in governance – from the first proposal or vote
- Time since governance participation – from the most recent proposal/vote
- Time in community – from entering the discord/discourse/forum
There can be other amalgamations of these – but i think those are the core ones that we could measure with some value
2 Likes
I can add all of these to the worksheet.
Grape emissions received would be binary?
For grape emissions received minus held, would this be just a way to isolate the emissions from any other grape bought elsewhere?
For the time based factors, what we’re hinting at here is simply the longer you’re engaged in these ways, the more reputation you accumulate?
I agree with time being a factor for sure, but I’d just be a bit cautious on how we score this when the time comes because it could end up overweighting reputation without any real participation. Also we generally need an event to represent an attestation so we could perhaps issue attestations automatically based on a predetermined frequency (e.g. day, week, month, etc.).
1 Like
Not binary, its the numeric value received. if we break it down further, its the amount received by source over time
the grape emissions received minus held would help us know if the bulk of governance power received is treated as governance or as a monetary reward
the time factors are mostly connected to events/participation. some of those that i outlined are more about curiosity than they are for reputation i totally agree! the time must be connected to participation milestones. Time in this structure might be that you need to have spent X amount of time at reputation level 1 to progress to reputation level 2 (plus some sort of milestones)
Im leaning on Bitcointalk’s activity system when I think of how time is applied
I think I understand better, but I do have a couple points to clarify.
I get that the amount received by source matters. The reason I brought up the binary aspect is that it seems that when we introduce the amount we get into scoring or some sort of amplification of importance. Am I getting that right? In a first step, I’d like to separate events from the scale of importance. Do you see a way to do this in the context you’re explaining?
For emissions received minus held, does held only represent emissions that are stagnant (haven’t been sold) or should we take into account emissions sold → emissions received minus held/sold/ceded/etc. ?
when you reference time and levels, this also introduces a notion of scoring (levels). if we start with just the frequency then we can work towards levels/scoring imho.
the thing about Bitcointalk is that it’s fully activity based which is great. But when we introduce tokens, reputation will be amplified by wealth. that’s ok so long as we’re aware of that and that’s what we want.
2 Likes