A lot the recent discussion on discourse around systematizing builder incentivization can be consolidated & mvped via a general coordinape round.
some planz:
Custody funds in Nouncil wallet and Nouncil members will co-administer the round along with interested Nouners/Nounders.
Round will be opt-in with a low threshold for inclusion (open to Nouncil communities)
Market the round as recognition for contributions in the previous quarter (Jan-Mar)
Hold townhalls to discuss mechanics, allocation strategy, allow for ācampaigning,ā poking holes etc
Continue to discuss optimizations ; equal/unequal vote distributions, 2nd-order incentives to vote (more vote tokens in subsequent round / reward multipliers etc)
Potential mechanism shortcomings:
off-chain
not anon (possibility to feel āundervaluedā by peers)
gameable if not gatekept (admins responsible to allocate voting rights fairly)
counterincentives to vote (can be solved with voting incentives or simply by revoking allocation of nonvoting participants)
more visibily-building and āpopularā participants may receive extra marbles
Requesting 100 Eth, with round possibly running in two (25 / 75) stages (technically separate rounds), allowing for refinements or capitulation if ngmi
As discussed in the Discord Wag, Nouncil is ready and willing to help how we can. I have used Coordinape personally with another project I was involved in, with a contributing team of 10 and it worked quite well, will be curious to see if it does the job here also.
Will it be an open nomination, with rewards then scaled from āoutsizedā for major contributors and smaller token amounts for smaller contributors? Or is that still TBD?
open to perspectives and building some consensus around best mechanism for adding participants and allocating votes, & hoping everyone (or at least many) can feel involved in designing the procedure if they are inclined.
& yes my personal thinking has been to start from a permissive orientation and allow for some emergence wrt gatekeeping, though as you know there is flexibility on voting/receiving rights (participants can be eligible to receive but not vote, have more or less voting power etc) .
The āoutsizeā scaling concept is complex. Seemingly we could allocate proportional to the square of the vote outcome (the opposite of quad vote haha), but if this is advertised it is easy to counteract if voters collectively quad (or quartal!) vote. In the end voters will vote according to their interests, and iād think the experiment succeeds or fails broadly according to how well we align participants in wanting to help the round be as effective/positive sum as possible.
So, if Nouners express a mandate/desire to see allocation more heavily-weighted towards a small group then maybe the voters will deliver it? This maybe works better if a larger percentage of builders had direct skin in the game than currently do; but Iām not saying voting in the round wonāt not not make participants eligible for Noun-denominated airdrops down the line
