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
21 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
Trigs
@trigs
Makes me think of circles, based on my rudimentary understanding.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
circles is more self-sovereign: i make a currency and you can choose how to value it this is more of a 1-to-many prediction market, i make allocations across many projects and you choose how to value my allocations
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
I see your distinction; it was just the backing the currency component that seemed similar, as you can fund your currency to drive others to value it more. It is more the reverse of circles, the more I look at it. This actually is sounding more and more like a twist on the /impact app and their concept of incentivizing curators to pick "winners" and ppl support the choices of curators they approve of. Same kind of predicting who everyone will like best and using that as the funding distribution mechanism if you're right.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
It does sound somewhat similar to /impact !
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
