Awesome proposal! I can’t wait to see the outcome at the expiry. It truly brought us together like family. No clue who half the people were in the Discord before our first round… After brainstorming, working together, community calls and just chatting back and forth we all know each other on a personal level. Our first KPI brought our core SuperUMAns together to become a tight knit community and this second round added more to that family. It is exciting to see it all happen. You already have a great community now, I can only imagine how much you will grow. You all should come over and hop into one of our calls. The SuperUMAn community calls are on Tuesday 1am utc/ Monday at 9pm EST. in our Discord SuperUMAn HQ. Would be happy to have you join us. You can see how we run our program and feel free to ask any questions you might have.
I’d have to challenge that logic re: gamification concerns to be honest. You’re correct that a user could create multiple accounts for the forum, though that would take substantial effort to provide helpful comments from multiple accounts. I could also have multiple discord accounts running simultaneously for the same purposes. Not to mention multiple wallets holding DFX to get those KPIs, as well as to use for voting for even more KPIs. Point being I don’t think the forum stands out more than other categories as being concerning re: gamification and wouldn’t exclude it based on that rationale. I’m certainly open to other reasoning and as I say I don’t feel strongly about rewarding past forum contributions, but I think incentivizing future productive discussion that actually shapes the proposals to be voted upon for the protocol itself is important.
I personally think the tiebreak mechanism sounds overly complicated and better to rely on clear objective criteria.
I do agree that it would be ideal for the contributed content to be substantial, but how to measure… Discord is also a subjective place and we are using pure # of comments regardless of their nature.
I get the impression you have a great community! 
I like your proposed compromise @tanman. It seems like we have more or less a consensus on what we want to do for the 50% for our community members!
We can probably “lock this down” with a vote on signal. What do you guys think? Or should we wait until we finalize the other 50% first?
I agree @adrian.
My suggestion is to NOT put KPI distribution plans to a community vote. Reason being - voters could be slightly biased based on how much the plan benefits their individual address. The plan was to exhaustively collect all inputs from community and have core team make final decision.
Looks like we have broad alignment, so we can lock this down if core team is comfortable.
What should however be put to vote the amount of KPI options we plan to distribute through this process. We definitely want the community to tell us (via a vote) if we are giving away too many or too few options through this process
Ah right, that makes sense. I’ll have a discussion with the team regarding this later today. Thanks.
While I hesitate to be the squeaky wheel, on principle I respectfully dissent.
-
While I may be alone on this, I still believe strongly in the importance of encouraging broader forum participation. We speak of broad consensus, but this is not evident to me based on the paucity of opinions expressed. I don’t need to be right, in fact I’m quite happy if a broad majority shares an opposing view, but I think striving for a governance forum where that is even possible to have materialize is worthwhile. I have yet to hear clear reasoning counter to this point. (I should note I would quite willingly exclude myself from forum KPIs if the optics suggest my goal is personal gain. I truly believe this is important for future/ ongoing DFX governance, hence my persistence).
-
I maintain concerns that without metrics on # of participants in each proposed category plus # of KPIs to be allocated (and # of associated DFX) there is a risk of over or under rewarding/ incentivizing certain categories. Not the end of the world I guess, but I don’t see the down side in a quick numbers check to say “yes, this makes sense” or “no, we should adjust.”
-
The goal is to shift DFX to decentralized governance. The proposed compromise of having the core team sift through forum contributions as a tie break in the future seems counter to that ethos/ goal and on this notion I am respectfully in opposition.
-
Regarding a community vote re: KPI distribution, I see the rationale and given the early nature am not strongly opposed. Counterpoint as above, being we’ve put out the notion of striving for decentralized governance, when do we trust the community at large to make such decisions.
I sort of take back my previous comments and agree with you that forum posts can be gamified similar to having multiple discord accounts or addresses. And i am sure everyone agrees forum contributions are valuable
If core team wants to do a bonus allocation for forum posters (say 5%) by cutting down allocation from some place else, that’s perfectly acceptable as well.
I appreciate the thoughtful reflection.
ohh wow…we know the 26 individuals who attended the call. @thecryptoforager - do you think we should carve out a % for forum posts and all these KPI call attendees (now that we have good clean data)?
Didn’t realized DFX had recruited an intelligence officer… nicely done! 
Personally I’m not convinced attendance on an isolated call necessarily warrants inclusion, specifically one focused on the KPIs themselves… That being said, given the better data, if others feel strongly and want to use it to cast a net, I’m fine with it.
I strongly support forum inclusion.
Lol. I could see Forum bot raids using a content spinner. Like the spam bot raids on Discord.
The thing is; once a wider community forms, people will know who the strangers are. There will be this cross-over from Discord to your Forum. An unfamiliar author should stick out like a sore thumb.
I like the idea of incentivizing more Forum discussion. It would take some hands on work if you wanted to include authors up to a certain date. And could you collect all the addresses?
Howdy thecryptoforager. You bring up some important considerations and I’ll do my best to answer from the lense of a SuperUMAn in our second round of KPI Options.
-
To start, I really like the idea of incentivizing Forum behavior/engagement. Shared some of my views with tanman. My only possible concern might be the difficulty in coordinating the task of choosing and collecting the addresses.
-
This is the ‘science’ of refining your airdrop list that Clayton spoke of above. You’ll have a clearer view of participation levels as you near expiry/beginning of the next KPI Option round.
At that point, you can tweak the distribution to make it consistent with performance. For this first round, I think it is important to have an even distribution…but also recognize the current main contributers with a larger portion. EAsports described this well in Discord:
"yeah, all this makes sense and seems like a good approach to me. You are casting a wide net to potentially gain some new community members/contributors and also trying to incentivize those involved to get more plugged in. If you look at simple numbers, and say you have 1000 options, you could do something like this:
500 - broad external communities
300- majority of existing community (more potential to be involved and start putting in more effort)
200- top 10% or 50 community members (basically getting a double share. You are rewarding them for being valuable already, but also aligning their incentives to work harder to grow and meet goals for the project)"
-
This is a really interesting idea to bump someone’s Discord rank up in a tiebreaker by assessing their Forum activity. Seems it wouldn’t make sense until more people raise their Discord level. You have time to discuss more for round two (whether it should be a community poll or core team decision).
-
You bring up a really good question in your final sentence. It’s one we as SuperUmans and the core UMA team have spent some time discussing.
The truth is, I don’t think there’s a clear answer on the timeframe to full decentralization. I do see that we’ve traveled quite a ways down that path from where we first started with our first round of KPI Options.
Hope this helps shed some light.
Appreciate the thoughts! 