This proposal is aimed at providing predictability in the future supply of Seeds. Although we have wide agreement that new seeds will continually be minted based on XP earned in the MetaGame there is relatively low clarity in how this will impact the total supply as well as the seed market. Therefore I move that we institute a structural rule:
The MetaGame will Issue an amount of seeds no greater than X% of the existing Supply per calendar month.
Furthermore, I propose that we initially set X =5, which implies an annualized increase in Seeds of approximately 80%.
I suggest (but do not mandate) that the discussion on this thread be focused to a discussion of the value of X.
Note that:
Seeds are issued manually in a discretionary fashion, on an approximately monthly basis
This proposal does not address how XP is used to determine Seed allocations to players. The specific rules for how XP is mapped into seed issuance is its own area of research, and among other topics includes developing a plugin specific budgeting features into our sourcecred instance.
Seeds are only issued to metagame players as determined by a minimum XP level (which is itself a potential structural policy)
This policy allows for Fewer seeds to be minted but not more than X%.
This proposal is intended to be considered according to a variation of
I appreciate the benefits of having a more predictable issuance (eg. easier to onboard hodlers),
but I was always against limiting the issuance because I think we should retain flexibility in activity scaling.
The whole point of this bootstrapping method is to allow scaling of organizations based on meme strength vs capital. We are not bounded by a “runway”,
We issued ~$100k this past year, but I think we should be issuing way more than ~$100k next year if we want to scale…
I like the current “per active player” system, maybe we should just be adjusting how much of XP is required to be considered an active player?
Over the next 3-6 months, the number of active players should cap out at 150, so that could be another way of approaching this estimation.
I think can hybridize the per active player metrics with capping logic to make sure that we can strike a balance between issuance and contributions of active players. Keep in mind that as soon as you cite “~$100k this past year”, you are embedding some assumptions about price, but price will be impacted to some extent by issuance so there are circumstances in which you actually issue fewer new seeds, but actually more dollar value worth of compensation. Conversely, there is a risk that you issue more seeds but effectively compensate contributors less, (or you run the treasury dry propping up the market). One of the main reasons for my grouping of proposals was to help the DAO manage (transparently and inclusively) this multi-mechanism system.
Makes sense. Yeah, I do think we should be decreasing the amounts minted as the price per Seed grows. Not in lockstep, since people have been underpaid so far and because of high slippage, but yeah…
There’s so many moving parts, I have no idea how this should be figured out.
Lets see how this pump unravels over the coming 2 weeks, but maybe its already time to lower the issuance a bit as the price almost tripled in the past few days.
Definitely. If the price of SEEDs went UP 3-times in USD value, it means that devs should be paid 3-times less amount of SEEDs for the same tasks as before to keep 1:1 ratio $100 = $100. I will watch how this policy will be managed internally, because it’s quite important for patrons.
