It’s come up, many times, in the past week or two, that (many) people are not happy with the way SEEDs have been minted and distributed (or the lack thereof). Enthusiasm is the lifeblood of MetaGame, and SEEDs are the tangible representation of that lifeblood. If you’re enthusiastic and contribute you’re supposed to be recognized and rewarded for that. Some people have been awarded SEEDs for their efforts, some people have been promised SEEDs for their efforts, and some people have contributed but been ignored because they didn’t want to negotiate a SEED payout for something they were doing just for fun anyways.

In short, we have SEED debt.

In order to move forward we need to address this so that past contributors feel valued and aligned with the future direction of MetaGame, and so that we don’t accumulate bad vibes that haunt us until the end of our days. Building products is about building things people want, but building DAOs is about building something people want to be part of. We need to support the people who have contributed to making MetaGame amazing.

As such, if you have contributed to MetaGame and feel like your contributions weren’t valued or recognized, or you know someone who’s contributions deserve more love, please post them here! Then we can create proposals to allocate SEEDs so that everyone feels like a valued part of the MetaFam :octopus:

1 Like

here a query I made aboutit some weeks ago

I’ve being giving ~ 20% of my time and efforts for two weeks (~30% last week + 10% this week) in following discussions & researching about tools with the potential to be strategic usefull for the MetaGame. The outcome is the following:
The MetaGame Colony

You did get a bunch of XP for those discussions:

As for the research, I’m not sure how we should value it especially if it wasn’t on something we agreed on a community call or something that it should be researched and paid for with Seeds.

I have personally been spending 50% of my productive time for the past 8 months (adding up to >500 hours) on researching & reading books directly related to how to do any of this and we probably wouldn’t be where we are if I didn’t.

Haven’t been asking for Seeds for any of that because I thought it would open a can of worms where anyone can come in and say “I spent X amount of time researching, give me Seeds”
Which would be very hard to verify and incredibly hard to measure impact of.

  • it’s arguable that a person should have knowledge when starting work, not get paid to work.

Then again, companies do pay people to do research, research is A HUGE part of building a start-up & a lot of companies cover even for some personal development.

One way to approach this might be simply to do research on your own, then post your findings on Discord & Discourse & get rewarded for how much people appreciate what you did.

Thank you for bringing this up, this is definitely something worth figuring out sooner rather than later.
What are your thoughts on it?
And not just Gus’s, but whoever is reading this?

Maybe Uniswap bonding curve with DAI from the grant?

Maybe SourceCred / AraCred and rewarding commits / reactions?

Maybe partnership with the Island DAO?

I was pretty much JFDI, in the flow, but then some environmental protection and bird nesting season… I’m not giving up, I’m just rethinking strategy and realising it will take more time, energy, effort :slight_smile:

Would be cool to transmute energy from the Ether into 60 acres island in Estonia :estonia:

I have no idea who you are and how you do it, but the Metagame is one of the trippiest creations in the entire Metaverse :zap: :zap: :zap:

1 Like

The main seed debt I see currently outstanding are Intercon Related we chatted about it about 2 months ago, but I dont want it to slip too far into the past.

1 Like

We’re currently using SourceCred for tracking XP then using AraCred for minting, but it’s not ready yet so Seeds are not being minted.
We’ll be minting them through that, then deploying the gitcoin funds through Uniswap for those who will want to sell the Seeds.

The problem is some people were promised Seeds a long time ago :grimacing:

Thank you for your kind words, and I do hope too that we’ll be going physical asap.
That island you were showing in telegram the other day was :fire:
The only thing that I didn’t like was that project seemed to be focus on providing a luxury resort vs. something affordable, but that’s a topic for another discussion :slight_smile:
Also a big fan of Kotler’s work!

Since I deal with R&D in my day job, let me help identify what the salient points are

  1. Who pays for negative information? In any drug trial maybe 1 in a thousand compound tested qualifies for the next stage … so any blockbuster drug needs to cross-subsidise the millions of failures. Gus or anyone else could have spent all that time and conclude colony sucks (or next best thing to sliced bread). Should this negative info be carried by the individual or the public/club?

  2. Distinguish between sunk cost vs opportunity cost … Gus could have spent that time differently (opportunity) … now if MetaCartel commissioned the research, it then becomes an expensed sunk cost. What if there is a difference in value between the two? If community thinks knowledge about colony is worth $x whilst time spent is $y with x << y you have a problem (aka time-wasting/gold plating). If the information is valuable x >> y but you pay indian wages, then over time a sense of unfairness / exploitation creeps in and you get community disengagement

  3. Private vs non-confidential info … this is the conundrum about the value of secrets … Gus knows something that nobody else in the community. If he hypothetically refuses to divulge, then there is wasted effort in redoing the research. On the other hand, if two know, the value in exclusivity drops … Something like XP tends to be personal, you gain experience and unless you coach someone directly, hard to monetarised directly and thus more of capital investment in self-knowledge. On the other hand, I can alienate my personalty (legalspeak for sell my software code) so I would get paid for giving up private property (personal enjoyment) in return for the headache of handling tickets and mantaining. So we have in the latter case a transaction space, which convertible tokens can play a role.

Enough of background… let’s take the statements

I have personally been spending 50% of my productive time for the past 8 months (adding up to >500 hours) on researching & reading books directly related to how to do any of this and we probably wouldn’t be where we are if I didn’t.

Haven’t been asking for Seeds for any of that because I thought it would open a can of worms where anyone can come in and say “I spent X amount of time researching, give me Seeds”

Which would be very hard to verify and incredibly hard to measure impact of.

500 hours … this is sunk cost as the range of background would help form architecture choices in software engineering a working product. Best compensated with SEEDS perhaps with a discount for the personal enjoyment side (a lot of R&D is wasted).

I spent X amount of time researching, give me Seeds”

This is more opportunity costs … just reading per se would result in XP, how much of this translates into benefit for the group is based on better decision making. If that reading results in say a decision flowchart, that private information can be remunerated for SEEDS as then become a club good in that everyone can benefit.

The valuation of IP is incredibly difficult. if opportunity cost >> sunk cost, people stop volunteering after a point. People appreciate airing mutual views, but paying for a professional opinion (moving from reciprocal to transaction space) alters the dynamics. If personal knowledge stays private, then the model is you get recognised as domain expert and people come to you for consulting. The challenge is with software as code, this “pay for expertise” becomes less valid so the business model has to change. In what direction is still an open question.


Totally Peth!! It is a fact that there are lot of activities/efforts from one person to the coomunity/DAO/Commons that is basically not traceable nor verifieable by an algorythm. My only thought on that is that there should be the Salary figure.

Let’s say than one person commits 25% of his time to the MetaGame, in these kind of activities (research, Public Relationships, hight experience in an specific field, or even tripping in meditations and being enlighted about how rhe MetaGame should be defined in words…) Why can’t we give him a Salary?

In my personal example, well, I positionated myself as an Instigator, a person that push hard in giving adversarial feedback with the expectation of adding value and knowledge to the commons landscape/consciusness. That didn’t end well for me, I was not fairly (IMO) rewarded for it, instead, just found myself in the middle of conflictive situations, I was punished by a a MetaGame elite (aka Diamond Founder) while they gave didn’t gave me the right to defend myself (more context here).

It was clear for me (as I guess it was for tou Peth, even if I clearly didn’t spend that much effor as you did) that I wouldn’t have a fair SEED compensation (aka extrinsic incentive), althought I was emotionally involved with this, so my intrinsic incentive was covered, till of course I was punished.

I lost then all incentives to continue dedicating time and effort to the MetaGame therefore I disengaged, why? Because a group of people was not able to integrate the feedback in which I was telling them that tokencracy (that model that is putting a group of people into a governance elite) is kind of a :poop:.

I don’t want to rise new conflicts with my previous statement, I would actually expect that negative emotions about it are already disolve. I just want to share my thought about that if I believe even a “troll” (I’d rather use the word instigator thou :sweat_smile:) deserves not accountable compensation, there might be many other roles that also do deserve retribution in the form of a Salary.

The Salary is easy to manage and govern! Just find and select those roles that are needed that fits the no-way-to-measure-countributions, then find the people would fit into those roles and that have an easy way to proof the non-tangible-nor-measurable-value they could add to the community. Make an estimation and agreement about the productive time (or why time? maybe we are talking about people eith just good connections…) they would dedicate to the MetaGame, put a price in SEED to that (according to extrapolated metrics from the SEED market), and boom! You have continues flow of value coming and going to/from the MetaGame.

Depends on the way the research was started. If there was an agreement we have a thing that needs to be researched, then the cost of research is paid by the community.
If the person “went rogue” and decided to take a risk by going a certain direction, then it depends on the outcome. If there’s an agreement the direction was useful, paid by the community; if wasted effort, not.
I could theoretically ask to get reimbursed for my research that turned out useful.

The beautiful thing is that we all get compensated in the same way.
It might be disappointing, but it’s not unfair nor exploitative.

The person would be rewarded for writing up the findings of their research and sharing it with the community. There’s additional incentive in that writing good content is marketing for your consulting service.

How so? I could argue it’s even more valid. You write open-source code which cannot be monetized, but charge for your expertise to the people implementing it.

“because a group was unable to integrate feedback” Riiiiight.
We made it abundantly clear it was about misleading people aka making false claims.
And what you were doing wasn’t “giving feedback about tokencracy”, which you barely mentioned - it was pushing forward the use of Colony - which “solves” this problem by imposing an admin.
Can you please stop being a snake now, and start acting in an honest way?
Thank you.

And yes, we have “initiatives” for things that aren’t being accounted for through Discord, Discourse or Github :slight_smile:

I’ve been always very honest in thougths, words and acts!! but how could you know? you guys didn’t want to have a word with me, and prefered to get attached to your own cognitive bias…

anyway, not a snake bro! you made a question I did responded with just an extense view!

happy to follow that conversation in the Colony post

Sure thing mate, that’s probably why you felt the need to apologize…
Can we just move on?
It’s not productive and it’s also off-topic here :man_shrugging:

I moved on already bro! weeks ago :wink:

BTW, sharing personal messages with no context at all is not nice!!! how was it you called? Skewing truth… right? peace man! Honestly, peace!!! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: