Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/purple-publicgoods
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
links 🏴
@links
Personally I think re-running the retrofunding round with a less game-able mechanic would lead to a better outcome. Manual disqualification (DQ) can cause bad vibes in legitimate builders pretty easily, especially since the rules are changing 1-2 days before the end of the round. Why? It's harder to come up with DQ criteria than you might think. Will they check amps AND noice? Will they count only paid likes or both likes/recasts? What about someone who has 100 likes and only 5 of them are paid? What about someone whose cast was amped by someone else? Each of these is pretty arguable, and the nature of the game means you need to do the DQ criteria in secret and that lends itself to bad vibes IMHO. I've been on the receiving end of that manual DQ process many times. I arrive in a new community, pumped up and ready to contribute only to be told my contributions aren't worth anything compared to "trusted contributors". It sucks. 1/3
4 replies
6 recasts
22 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
made me think of a weird idea: intersubjective retro funding anyone can make an allocation token and start allocating however they want good allocation tokens get allocated funds to back the token value (so those who got allocations can cash out) maybe we get meta-allocation tokens who allocate to compositions of allocators who then get allocated allocations to allocate, or something.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
links 🏴
@links
Dude I think you just broke my brain
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Trigs
@trigs
Makes me think of circles, based on my rudimentary understanding.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
