Shouldn’t onboarding yourself to the DAO be part of MG Quest #1?
Also, 20 SEEDs just to drop a comment or lurk on a call seems high. 10 maybe, but if we give out SEEDs left and right then The MetaGame SEED Market 🌱 won’t have any value. We should model this so that we know how the influx of new players will affect the dilution of current players.
In an ideal scenario more people participating (growth) will translate to more activity and more value creation (SEED price appreciation), however, it might not. If bringing more people into the MetaGame dilutes current players (SEED holders), then there are adversarial incentives between the old guard and the new guard.
On a meta-level the only way this works if the value new people provide is greater than the dilution cost. This can often be assessed if the project has a clear strategy, there’s a concrete proposal to act on that strategy, and there’s a clear ROI from the project. Then token holders can vote to mint new tokens, slightly diluting themselves, but creating new positive impact to the project. In this process there would be due diligence to determine how many tokens should be minted for the value add.
In the case of MetaGame, however, I do not know of a clear tokeneconomic model. We’re minting SEEDs, but we don’t even know the value of SEEDs. If SEEDs are going to be used for governance and gameplay, and people are going to exchange scarce resources (time and money) in exchange for them, we should know how many SEEDs to give for things and how often.
@mzargham do you have any ideas on how we could model the current quests as well as current SEED disbursements (fixed for bounties as well as the average weekly minting from random requests) to see if there exists a stable equilibrium where SEEDs rise in value vs being a race to the bottom, and if so, what we need to do to achieve that equilibrium?
Related thread that addresses this Issue by minting XP for new contributors instead of SEEDs.