With this post, we are starting an open discussion among the Eco Protocol community on the topic of creating an incentive program for active community members and teams that bring benefits, and value and create tools for protocol development. Please review the draft and contribute your ideas if you feel it is necessary. Let’s allow 15 days for feedback and discussion, after which we will continue to move toward implementation with the ideas that are submitted.
These ideas came up and were discussed (between Layer 3 members and the Eco Association) a few weeks before Ryne’s post was published, so while we understand some of the uncertainty surrounding ECOx in the future and its tokenomics, we could discuss more of the structural ideas and only partially the numbers.
Draft ideas:
ihar: The program will take place every 12-14 months and will allow any active community member (or team) who has benefited the community, protocol, or ECO token, in any quality way, to be compensated for their contribution in ECOx tokens. One can only apply for a contribution that has not been compensated in any other way/method before. Applications will be accepted for a month.
Dave’s comment: we could run this on a 6-month distribution schedule with an open-ended application process. (i.e. applicants will be added to the next upcoming cohort). Also, is there a specific reason for having application windows?
Submission process:
- Any member (or team) of the community sends a detailed report on his/her contribution, wherein a free form he/she indicates all the most important things that were done, as well as any additional information that he/she considers necessary to show a full picture of his/her participation and the benefits that were brought. This report could be sent to the Eco forum. The applicant indicates the desired amount of the retroactive grant based on their report, ranging from 0 to 125,000 ECOx.
Dave’s comment: Should there be some structure or framework to the application process in order to make it easier to evaluate both individually and against other projects? Free-form applications may lend themselves to a wide variety of formats and make it much more difficult to assess equitably.
Also, is the reason for the 125k max to align with Trustee maximum compensation? I’m wondering if this is necessary? Perhaps more appropriate is a minimum compensation request…we wouldn’t want the assessment panel getting bogged down with a large number of very small requests.
- Next, a pre-selected group of the most active community members from the past 12-14 months gives their score to each application (not necessarily as a group, individually). Through their feedback, they will seek to assess the adequacy of the request for the report provided. Also, because they have been the most active participants in the community over the past 12-14 months, they can better understand many of the behind-the-scenes aspects and perhaps better assess the impact of each applicant on the overall growth and development of the protocol and community and better assess the adequacy of the request within the range of 0 to 125,000 ECOx. They can make their assessment publicly (on the Eco forum) or privately - directly to the Eco Association members.
Dave’s comment: what constitutes ‘most active community members’ definitely needs to be better understood here. I think at first the proposal is to have the Association assign this group?
Also, this is similar to the Optimism badgeholder structure which is great, Annika is a member and can most likely give a lot of insight into what is working and what can be improved with this structure. Probably want to have a semi-regular schedule of calls with the group to discuss and debate projects as well.
ihar: There are different ways of selecting participants for this group, but assuming that they should be the most active members of the community, they should probably be nominated by the association itself, simply by asking them to participate in the evaluation. Their purpose in this case would simply be to assist the Eco Association in making a final decision. To be both an additional support and validators of the Association’s decisions.
Dave’s comment: good short-term but less than ideal long-term solution.
ihar: Each year it can be different people (from among the most active) and the number depends only on how much the Association would like to decentralize its own decisions.
Dave’s comment: so the assumption is that the group changes every 12 months?
- The final part of the process is for the Eco Association to give a verdict on each application and say to what extent it will grant the original request. Retroactive grants issued will be subject to a vesting period of 12 months with monthly unlocks. Grants less than 5K ECOx could be issued without vesting.
Dave’s comment: it may be better form to have the group determine allocations and have the Association either approve or veto the allocation. Ideally, the Association would always approve and only use the veto in case of serious misalignment. This makes the Association a ‘safety stop’ rather than the primary determining body for reward allocation.
ihar: Some additional observations: the evaluation will likely be based on the applications submitted. That is, there will be a few of the most active members (or teams) of the community who have had the most impact and contributed the most - and, unwittingly, other submissions will be compared to those submissions. Accordingly, the grants given out will depend on what kind of applications are submitted each year.
Dave’s comment: Optimism is getting more specific about the types of grants that are being funded, while I don’t think that will work for us at this time I do believe that each applicant should be judged on its own merit and not within the context of the ‘cohort’ of applications for a given cycle. For example, if 10 sub-par applications came in for 1 cycle, I would assume that all of them would be denied, rather than choosing the ‘best of the worst’ and assigning that application a reward. Conversely, if 10 incredible submissions were put forward for 1 cohort, I would not assume the ‘worst of the best’ would receive a lesser reward simply because it was submitted during a particularly robust cycle. That said, there will of course be a human element to the judging process and some of this cannot be avoided, but we should recognize it and do our best to be aware of and minimize this effect to the extent possible.
ihar: Social media coverage of such a program is essential. If new members of the community can openly see the reports of those who have received retro-grants, the size of the retro-grant, and understand the direction of their efforts, it seems to encourage an influx of new active community members.
Dave’s comment: Agree 100% with this, we should interview winners and applicants, support them on our social streams and amplify anyone building on Eco.
ihar: In my opinion, the most important thing in this process is the applicant’s initial report, a lot will depend on it. And also the applicant’s initial request within the 0-125,000 ECOx range.
Dave’s comment: Agree, I think supporting the applicant via a clear expectations, submission process and format + live support in the community is the best way to make sure applicants are 'set up for success’.
