The MetaGame SEED Market 🌱

Inspired by this post, @burrrata, @Yalortackson and I decided to take the leap and see if MetaGame could leverage Aragon Fundraising bonding curves to act as a market maker and liquidity provider for MetaGame SEEDs, allowing anyone to purchase and sell their SEEDs for “real money” (SEEDs are better than money, but don’t tell anyone that).

Some context: Aragon Fundraising is a platform for running a “DAICO” using bonding curves, which allows for people to buy and sell SEEDs on a deterministic pricing curve without the need for liquidity providers or market makers, resulting in a fair and decentralized mechanism for funding social good.

If we are to enact this, there’s a lot of things we need to consider to make it work properly and align the incentives / game theory with the goals of MetaGame. Here’s the design goals we discussed in our call:

  1. We don’t want to invite speculators who are only interested in making a profit from the market activity of SEEDs
  2. We want to use this to harmonize the “Founding Fam” and “Funding Fam” into one crypto-economic system
  3. We want this system to deliver the most value for contributors and active participants of MetaGame

Playing with the different parameters and settings for Aragon Fundraising on the testnet, we were able to come up with a system that fulfills these goals and will add a lot of meaningful value for the players of MetaGame. Here’s the rundown:

  1. The governance over the parameters and settings for the SEED market will be controlled by the Diamond rank players of MetaGame
  2. The Aragon Fundraising app will be initialized as a new DAO with the Diamond rank players as the “Council”
  3. There will be no “pre-sale” or “vesting schedule” of SEEDs.
  4. The Council will mint and distribute SEEDs based on the current allocations in the Google Sheets and current Aragon DAO
  5. A portion of the funding received from the Gitcoin grants will be used as the initial collateral pool for the SEED market
  6. The SEED market will then be opened up for anyone to buy or sell their SEEDs
  7. We will set a max slippage to prevent people from buying up a boat load of SEED at once. This prevent a whale from just dumping in a bunch of money and acquiring more SEED than the actual contributors
  8. SEEDs will continue to be minted outside of the market for quest completions and SourceCred XP
  9. A portion of the collateral pool will be siphoned off into the DAO bank every month. We have not decided on the amount yet.

The key piece here is the ability for the council to mint SEEDs outside of the market. This discourages speculators from purchasing a lot of SEED to just hodl and make money without participating since the SEED supply will always be growing as more people earn them through quests and XP.

SEED is going to be purely a utility / governance token, NOT a security or something that is expected to appreciate in value. What is the utility of SEED you ask? People buying SEED are essentially funding the development of MetaGame by creating a market for the people that earned seed to “cash out”. SEED will also be used as a governance token for voting on how the DAO funds should be spent.

In the future, the main utility value of SEEDs will be to influence the priorities and direction for MetaGame via SourceCreds “boosting” mechanic. People will be able to spend / burn their SEED to “boost” the things that they feel aren’t being prioritized enough, giving more XP and SEED to the people that work on that thing. More on that in another post!

Our plan is to play around with the test net version for 2-3 weeks while we integrate SourceCred and improve the UX around completing quests and receiving SEEDs. Once that is all done, we will launch it on main-net and migrate everything over to the new DAO along with the new, streamlined system for earning, tracking, buying and selling SEEDs.

Here’s a link to the test DAO with the SEED market deployed on Rinkeby. Feel free to play around with it. You can use this faucet to get some Rinkeby DAI to purchase SEED with.

Here’s a link to the call recording where we discussed all this and deployed the test DAO.

Please share your thoughts, comments, and concerns! This is a big step for the next phase of MetaGame and will be the basis of how we operate, so we want to make sure we get it right.


Btw happy to answer any questions about Aragon Fundraising, how our testnet DAO is setup, and how you can get some tokens to try it out :slight_smile:

Also, if you really want to dive into understanding the mechanisms of Aragon Fundraising DAOs, this guide is an excellent starting point:

1 Like

I’m not any sure about this actually, adding a (pseudo-random) way to mint tokens that are already minted by a token-bonding market dynamic to me seems like adding complexity to cryptoeconomic dynamics that are per-se very complex already… I see SEED holders more as part of the council, and create a new token with the sole purpose to fund Metagame out of purposed-aligned speculators that have clear incentives (emotional AND economical) to participate in such an automatized markets.

1 Like

I see SEEDs as an engagement token minted out of labour and proof of social care about Metagame. It is a nice token to be used from the Council side of the equation, not from the funding side, which is a token governed by automatized markets dynamics.

1 Like

SEED has already been used for the funding side of the equation through GitCoin Grants. XP is what will be the “proof of work” for MetaGame since it won’t be a token and won’t be transferable. SEED is a “proof of support” of the project. Without the SEED market, people earning SEED won’t be able to sustain themselves off it and feed their families. MetaGame won’t be successful if it just relies on altruism forever, need to have actual economic incentives there as well.

SEED holders are a part of the council, specifically the diamond ranking ones. For everyone else, all this complexity will be abstracted away in a simple and understandable way. MetaGame needs to cater to everyone, not only the people that understand bonding curves and crypto economics. Ideally once we achieve the right balance of incentives, SEED will have a semi-stable value.


I completely align with the “proof of support” vision for Seed. Actually, participating in the Gotcoin grant was that! People are supporting and they do have SEED in returns! That’s exactly why I don’t see a SEED market ruled by a bonding curve.

This is NOT true… The nice thing of this bonding curve model, is that the funds to sustain continuos work of a team are not coming from this same people converting the SEED tokens into fiat si they can pay for a roof and a meal dor their kids, but from a commons fund, which the council (SEED holders in my view, and also yours I see) will govern so funds can be addressed to who’s delivering work (so people can eat and stuff :sweat_smile:).

But the market (the bonding curve market I mean) shall be not deployed for SEEDs, but for an specific token which utility is to incentive supporters to speculate on the price of their token while assuring funds to guarantee a core team will be dedicated to deliver for the project (so getting paid).

I understand you guys have already stablished a vision for how can SEEDs could be valuable. I’m just calling to give it a new perspective…
I just don’t see a current need in having a market value for SEEDs, I think it’s better to grant SEED holders to govern commons funds which at the end of the day would be DAIs comming into a pool thanks to the automatic market-maker dynamics that the bonding curve gives you by minting/burning selling/buying a (let’s call it for the moment) MetaGame Market Token (MGMT)

Sorry, but we need to know where we are placed and who is our market. Of course we want to reach everyone… but right now, at this stage of the MetaGame, everyone means crypto only people, and if crypto people don’t understand what a Bonding Curve is, we assume it’s part of the game and we teach them! I see @mzargham
Is playing the MetaGame, maybe we can schedulle an AMA about how he sees Bonding Curves fiting our funding needs (?:pray:).

Tackling first our surroundings is the best strategy we can approach, first innovators, then early adopters… Only then we’ll reach “everyone”.

I am down to schedule an AMA at some point. Fair warning though, I take a very formal approach to mechanism design. I agree firmly that the everyday user (player) should not need to understand the complexities of the underlying mechanisms. In fact by comparison to engineering the idea is that the end users understand the properties and trust that they hold, but not because they could have designed and constructed the thing themselves, e.g. civil engineers designing bridges.

So when consider mechanisms such as bond curves there are 2 different kind of audiences, those who need to understand the properties and those that need to design mechanisms which have those properties.

1 Like

I think this is worth the effort to experiment with and begin putting our Gitcoin funds to work. It’s essential for MetaGame to become a sustainable project asap so all the builders, shillers, and community creators can eat food lol.

I am confident that Aragon will provide guidance and support as we integrate more of their tools. We’ve made good progress with them thus far and I support this continued exploration.

As a disclaimer Iv’e been in this space for a while 2+ years and I have no clue what a bonding curve is :man_shrugging:t4: I consider myself a “crypto person” but that means I can use an Ethereum wallet and understand the use cases for cryptocurrencies in a future where money is governed and issued by everyone.

Do I need to know what a bonding curve is ? Should I know what Z-snarks are ? Did people need to know how facebook worked to start using it ? Nope.

What’s more important than everyone knowing everything about these experiments is knowing the intention behind them. Iv’e spoken extensively with @METADREAMER and I know that he is not going to deploy something that is going to blow up our community or send us into a frenzied SEED speculation bubble.

Perhaps he can extrapolate more on why this is a good thing for MetaGame players and what the desired benefits for creating a market for SEED would be ?


My personal take about this:

Yes We Need!

I mean, we are not only users of a platform that others are delivering to us so we can play on top of that. We are the builders of a future that people out there still has no idea about.

So maybe we don’t need to know how a merkle-tree works, but there are socio-economic components in the application layer that are not there yet, that they are making first appearance, that will be super usefull to use, and that… Yes! We Need not only to understand but to know how to use it well and explain that to others.

Maybe I’m wrong here (and I really hope I am) but to use bonding curve as a funding mechanism is something that not only those would be launching the campaign have to understand, also those who will be participating in the markets dynamics. Why? Because it is a new product that requires people to put their money at (a subjective level of) risk.

When people used email or Facebook for their first time, they had nothing to lose. When people use crypto or bonding curves dynamics they DO have something at stake, something with a considerable chance to get lost (or to get multiplied! Don’t forget that! :grin:)

1 Like

FTR @mzargham is kind of an expert on this, so we’re in good hands :slight_smile:

Also, here’s a big list of resources in case anyone wants to learn more!

I agree about the need to understand the bonding curve @Yalortackson at least a basic understand of it because we are the dreamers of the dream and the explainers of tomorrow. The short TL;DR of bonding curves is using math to determine value of a commodity based on the supply.
The main takeaway is the contract dictates the price gets more expensive as more tokens are in circulation.

For a more a more mathematically inclined audience, here is an IEEE 2 pager giving an overview of the subject.


What is Founding and Funding Fam?

I like if there is a difference between earned Seed and bought Seed. I think it would be nice if i earned 10 Seeds then I own “earned Seed” + “Seed”. “Seed” i can sell but “earned seed” i can’t sell. so when i earn 10 Seed i actually have 20 seed voting power. I like selling my seeds but for the community i am more valuable voter probably because i know the game better then someone who only bought the seed so for the community its good if I have still power to vote. but I can only vote all the other stuff like buying perks with my seed i can only do with “seeds” not with “earned seeds”.

why is there a need for minting Seeds for funding? I thought the game is doing quest getting XP and earning SEED? So if you do stuff you get seed. I don’t get why you need to mint seeds for funding when SEEDs get anyway distributed / funded to people who work for metagame.

how do i become a diamond seed holder? why do i need diamon holders if i have democracy (just seed voting / 1 token 1 vote) ? Is metagame a democratic game or is there an elite (damond holders)?

me too i am not a technical guy. the thing i know about bonding curve (could be wrong) is that there is a price curve and depending on the supply (more sell=burning tokens or more buy=minting) this price moves on the curve. But what i don’t get is in metagame there is only the option sell because i earn tokens via playing metagame (xp). so what i think makes more sense is if there is just a uniswap pool where people can sell/buy their tokens p2p. There is only a creation curve. But i prefer creation curve based on my Level based on xp. so perhaps level 1 i get x ammount and level 2 i get x+1 and then level 3 x+3 and level 4 x+5 or so, so there is a incentive to level up :slight_smile: :dizzy: just a fair game with simple rules everyone like

If Seed is the currency for solving quests/problems and xp is the distribution mechanism for the Seeds then based on the difficulty of the problem the more or less Seed you should get. It would be nice if Seed is a stable coin for solutions. so level 1 problem is equal to 0.1 seed and level 2 problem is equal to 0.2 seeds something like this. this is again a different approach. this would be a currency which reflects the value of the solution for a problem. but perhaps it could be all bind together. like people vote on the difficulty of the problem and based on that they get more or less XP and then they level up and based on the level they get each weak Seeds which they can spend because they will never loose their “earned seeds”. if the creation curve of seeds are flat then “earned seeds” will somehow better reflect the value of a users solutions compared to a curve where earlier adopters get rewarded more then people coming later because then their solutions are less valuable then the solutions of earlier contributors which creates an elite which weakens the system as a hole. the fairer the system the more robust it will be and the more value it will create and perhaps early adopters get more money anyway because the were able to level up earlier and therefore earned more seeds. I think its is fair if everyone get the same amount of XP for the same work and the same amount of Seed for the same level forever.

A fair game will automatically attract more people its a complete different spirit. no elite which thinks because they had the idea or got the idea and created the idea they deserve more from the pie. this distroys lots of community spirit and creates a unwanted hirarchy which harms the system in the long run. so a fair distribution of the essential ressources of the system is essential for the system to survive in the long term especially in an open source world. if everyone feels treated equal then you have a strong community spirit. and a big strong community is key. In Bitcoin they think oh so many wales and so expansice i move to a different community. In metagame they think oh nice perhaps some guys with high levels but still a chance to level up and earn good ammounts of seeds compared to those with high levels and perhaps a chance to catch up. This is motivation and motivation drives adoption.

XP is a non transferable measure of your contributions, and you can only earn it by contributing. SEED can be bought however, but you don’t get any XP for buying SEED, so there is already that distinction between earning and buying. Even if you sell your SEED that you earned, your XP stays the same.

The diamond founders are the MetaGame players that made the most contributions and earned the most XP/SEED. If you want to understand all this, I encourage reading the pillar articles linked in the wiki:

There is no “elite”. You can also become a diamond founder by making contributions and earning your way to the top. SEEDs and XP are inflationary, so even if the diamond founders have a lot of seed right now, if we stop contributing to MetaGame other players will earn more XP and dilute our shares, surpassing the existing diamond founders.

Also, 1 seed does equal 1 vote, diamond founders are just the people that have the most SEED and as a result the highest voting power.

1 Like

So It says that 1hour of work is equal to approximately 10 Seeds? Will this stay forever?

Why having diamond members when I have liquid democracy? People can buy itselfe to the top or when a few people stay at the top they have in interest staying there. I like if i can vote myself or vote for people I trust. Its more democratic and puts the power into the handy of the users. What is the advantage having diamond users having power compared to quadratic liquid democracy? Which powers do diamond users have? Why not having a combination of both? So each user will have its own Seeds and on top they can get delegated Seeds through quadratic liquid democracy and the total winner will be the diamond user. That would be nice. Then those diamond holders need to more listen to the users.

Created a high level overview describing the motivation behind MetaCred, the dynamics of the SEED market, and how we can go about defining and modeling those dynamics. There’s even a diagram!

“All this being said, at the end of the day, humans always act on reward functions of either money, power, or fame.”
I dissagree. When I communicate with someone I want to learn, exchange ideas, further my knowledge. Also what about doing stuff just because i like them to do? Often when you add money to stuff people like to do then suddenly they don’t like to do them anymore. You would assume when you give people money for things they like to do they would likely like the stuff even more but often this isn’t true because money and power often destroys the spirit of love for the thing i do for free. its like having a child which likes to play football and the child does it without anything just because it loves to do it. then the father comes and says when you shoot a goal you get candy. and soon the child only plays football if it gets candy. Intrinsic motivation are much more powerful. People do stuff do achieve something bigger. to become someone/ something. People die for their family not because of money. they do it for higher reasons. And if you can unlock this spirit through a game then it becomes powerful. I think if you start with individaul intrinsic motivation with an individual game and then support a player for achieving their pesonal choosen goals by rewarding him / her with XP / SEEDs thats nice and when their person choosen goals are alligend with a bigger community goal which they achieve by working towards their own goals thats ideal. And sure people love to get appreciation for work they do from others but this is not the prim motivation. it all starts with intrinsic motivation. I think projects can be those bigger community goals which users can participate in and by participating (choosing their path/quests) they automatically do stuff they like, but money/power should be in the background not visibale more like a suprise a gift / donation not the reason of choosing the quest. I think visibal ranks distracts people from what they love to do and focus them on being better then others. this shouldn’t be the goal. you should work for yourself and the side effect should be progress for the greater good. money should be invisible. what should be visible is what people love to do / their quest they do / the feedback they get etc. not the rank or money they own.

for example i want to improve my spanish and a quest is to translate a spanish text to english so by doing this i improve my spanish and create value for the community and i get a small donation(XP) on top depending how good the translation is. so i get feedback for my quest. its more like a free school with donations(XP) on top. improving my skills/knowledge is the goal not money. So I earn XP in different skills and level up in skills. Also I have an overall level. The Game of Skills and Knowledge for the greater good :slight_smile:

This draft aggregates my own opinions as well as those of @mzargham, @METADREAMER and many others in the SourceCred and MetaGame communities.
Also, many thanks for @joecharlesworth (and potentially you!) for reading, reviewing, and providing suggestions.


Every day we create value in the world. This value is subjective based on our preferences and values. We use a lot of mechanisms to express those preferences such as emojis, messages, and payments. Money, as a means of exchange, allows us to store and exchange “value.” This is an improvement over bartering constantly, but we are still lacking efficient markets for things that aren’t things: ideas.

The value of an idea is priceless. Literally and figuratively. Outside of some very specific contexts, we don’t have mechanisms to price ideas. This is odd because thinking (and thumbs) is what enables humans to go beyond any other species on eart. We spend the first quarter of our lives focused on education, but then we don’t have ways to directly reward excellent thinking. We only have ways to reward actions that can be rewarded by a market of buyers and sellers.

SourceCred changes this by creating a market for all the things. It does this by page ranking all the things. Value functions are no longer solely determined by a fixed set of players who can can pay for goods and services - value functions are determined by the engagement of all the market participants (players in a “game”). This goes beyond buyers and sellers to create a third new thing. SourceCred moves us beyond the traditional game of finance (optimizing for a single reward function: money) and moves us into a meta-game of human coordination (where the players preferences determine what is optimized for).

The more players engage with your content, the more points you get. All players play and all players get points. Value functions (take a specific action to get points) with multiple subjective value functions (learn what do most people like). Different people like different things, so people’s subjective preferences will determine the measure of that value rather than a fixed system. Humans act as a subjective oracle to the game, expressing what is valuable and shaping the actions and beliefs of the other players. It’s a self learning system of humans by humans, mediated via software.

A value network that doesn’t require a global sense of “value.”

SourceCred as a design pattern is credibly neutral, but any real world instance of it is not. This is because the players in that game will be expressing their preferences and there will be governance of the weights/parameters. The players of any specific SourceCred game will be defining it and shaping it according to their values and preferences. This is good because often the most valuable players aren’t the ones who play the game, but the ones who redefine it (aka entrepreneurs). SourceCred rewards and optimizes for this behavior.

All this being said, at the end of the day, humans always act on reward functions of either money, power, or fame. Even with Sourcecred, that still is the baseline motivations of all the players, but it allows for those things to be more fluid / dynamic and determined in a declarative way rather than an imperative way.

SourceCred is a tool that improves the contributor experience. It does not intend to completely “fix” human coordination and collaboration. In fact, we don’t even know if it works at all! We’ve been dogfooding it, however, and results are encouraging. While nothing will ever be perfectly optimized, we feel like this is a step in the right direction. The journey to the ideal is more important than reaching the ideal. There is no end game. The only thing that matters is what we are doing today is better than what we are doing yesterday. (Inspired by One Punch Man)

SourceCred Token Economy Overview

Initial whiteboard sketch

Temp diagram

Go here to see the latest and greatest diagram.

SourceCred Community Economy

For the purposes of this exercise SourceCred is treated as a black box. We assume that a community using SourceCred has configured it across platforms (Discord, Discourse, GitHub, etc…), tuned the weights, etc… The important thing here is that SourceCred outputs scores that we can then use to mint Grain on-chain.

Grain Governence

We then have the governance mechanism that determines how tokens are minted/burned.

The token contract could be:

  • a standalone token contract
  • a DAO that can mint shares

The governance mechanism for minting and burning of tokens could be any of the following:

  • Admin key
  • Multi-sig
  • DAO

ERC-20 Grain Market

The primary Grain Market is assumed to be an automated market mechanism such as a bonding curve. This solves the bootstrapping problem allowing the market to exist in a permissionless way. Uniswap is the most readily available of these mechanisms available in the wild, but this could also be an Aragon Fundraising DAO. The benefit of modeling this using Uniswap is that it is a generic mechanism that allows anyone to setup a Grain market regardless of the on-chain contract/system they use to mint Grain.

Some notes on Uniswap:

  • The “fee” is just a bit of each transaction that stays in the pool. Liquidity providers are entitled to a portion of the pool relative to how much liquidity they provided. As the pool grows, the total value that a liquidity provider has claims on increases.
  • If the pool is an ETH pair it’s really just 2X the amount of ETH in the pool because the ERC-20 in the pool must always equal the ETH on the other side of that market.
  • An oracle is then needed to get the price of ETH, and then you can easily calculate the “market cap” of that token based on the ETH in the pool.
  • So the value of your pool tokens = market cap of token / your percentage of the pool

The Larger Game

The larger game nests economic systems. It’s economics all the way down.

  • The local SourceCred economy
  • The primary Grain market
  • The secondary Grain market
  • The broader Ethereum economy
  • The global fiat economy

All of these markets affect the prices of each other. For example, if there is a Grain/ETH Uniswap pool the value of your token will fluctuate as ETH prices fluctuate. Furthermore, if your token is cheap it becomes very easy to 51% attack either the token itself of the market/liquidity-pool for the token.

Next Steps

This post is a draft. We need to refine it so that it’s accurate and intuitive.

Once we have a high level overview of the system, we need to drill down. The next step is to take apart each mechanism in the diagram and define it explicitly. What does it do and what are the characteristics we need to hold under all conditions?

Then we need to write these out as python functions.

Then we need to run those through a CadCAD model to explore how the system might behave under various conditions.

Cryptoeconomics 101

Mechanisms = words
Protocols = sentences
Composing protocols = paragraphs
Economies = books

Composability is the key. Looking at mechanisms in isolation within a closed system does not work. On Ethereum any contract or protocol can be composed into another. This is why, esp for DeFi protocols, the cryptoeconomic analysis is just as important as the solidity security review - as oversights in both can cause unintended side effects, esp due to reinforcing feedback loops.

  • While Ethereum contracts are deterministic, they are also state dependent and if the state changes in unintended ways the contracts will behave in unintended ways. Blockchains computer over context. You’re writing deterministic code that is conditional on the context of the state of the blockchain.

Mechanism composability is key. Often a mechanism is fine on it’s own, but when it’s combined with other mechanisms the interaction creates new (and often unexpected!) things.

The complexity of a system increases exponentially the more complex the mechanisms and the more of them there are. Our brains can think through lots of stuff, but we are not equipped to think through complex non-linear systems in our heads. This is why we need modeling: unknown unknowns are often the biggest cause of economic ruin.

Design ⇒ Test ⇒ Iterate ⇒ Deploy ⇒ Analyze ⇒ Iterate ⇒ Analyze ⇒ Etc…

1: Define design goals

  • Ex: The users are indifferent to gaming the system because there’s very little value in doing so.

2: Identify principles

  • mechanisms where certain properties hold under all conditions
  • these cannot be broken down further
  • rights and access controls (permissions)
  • can be state dependent

3: Compose mechanisms into design patterns

  • series of actions that will produce consistent and reproducible results
  • a “protocol” is just a design patter that has been written down in a programming language

Thinking through mechanisms and composing them into design patterns is essential for good systems that people can use in a variety of use cases and contexts.

4: Model design patterns

The mechanisms are the words, and the design patterns are the sentences. The more you understand the language the more expressive you can be to deliver the message desired (design goals). It’s like having tools in a toolbox so that you don’t become a man with a hammer.

5: Test IRL

Theory only gets us so far. We need to start dogfooding the system in controlled and low-risk experiments. Then we can recycle our learnings back into improving the design and trying a new experiment. Yay science.


SoureCred allows you recognize and reward contributions to both tangible and intangible contributions.

Unlike robotics where robots need to learn a model of the world, cryptoeconomic systems are simpler to make because the humans do the computation. Humans take actions in the system and the mechanism design needs to coordinate their actions towards the intended goals of the system.

  • The hard part, however, is that unlike robots humans do not act “rationally.” They tend to express preferences and value rather than optimizing for a reward function. (/1up to behavioral economics)

If we think of capital as a physical model, it can unlock new mental models:

  • liquidity as energy
  • fees as friction that capture energy

Financial rewards affect decision making, but ultimately money is a constraint on your ability to do things; you use it as a sort of action potential (power), but its not intrinsically valuable (other than as a means towards other ends). In practice DAOs open pathways to achieve ends (to self actualize individually and as groups) without necessitate money as an intermediary. Money/payment is just translation protocol, that allows you to transfer value between systems.

Map ↔ Territory

What we believe ↔ What happens IRL

^^ these things need to connect

Simple Cred Sheet

Until Initiatives/Quests are enabled, we can add points for out-of-game activities manually before submitting tx on-chain.

  • This has an unfortunate side-effect in that the Cred earned through out-of-channel means will only be counted in the final score. It will not add to a player’s weight within the game. This means your final score might be 100, but the impact of your actions within the game would only be weighted as 80 or something.
  • The also has the fortunate side effect of working now without waiting for multiple teams to implement multiple features.


SourceCred Cryptoeconomics chat

MetaGame Stategery chat


SourceCred in 5 minutes

An ERC20 to track Grain

SourceCred ERC-20 Token and/or DAO

The MetaGame SEED Market :seedling:

Minting XP Instead of SEEDs