I had a discussion with PP team member & I heard a lot of disappointment about beta & gamma testers “support”! Most of us even didn’t claim their VP. No votes for proposals. No signs of activity. But it’s the easiest way to support protocol. What’s the problem, guys? We’ve even created PP ambassador program than. And still nothing.
So my question is very simple, but I see that I’m opening Pandora’s box starting this discussion! So the question is: should there be any penalties for those testers who makes nothing and find it very hard & complicated just to claim their VP.
Does that anything mean for the community that they do not use VP? Do we need their voting for anything or is it just the quorum thing (level of participation needed for proposals to pass)…?
Yeah, honestly we are disappointed by some of Beta/Gamma round guys, who did nothing for PowerPool and even didn’t do the simplest activity such as claim votes/participating in governance.
Is it possible to remove their VP entirely and shorten or entirely remove their vesting rewards? On proper assessment of what they did or did not do of course…
Pandora indeed, with the only difference that we can easily open and then fix it.
From the very beginning, I and many others keept telling that this kind of CVP distribution was a huge mistake.
One step we did is having these allocations locked and vested, and imo this saved CVP from death in September.
But we shouldn’t forget that there were many voices asking for more transparency regarding what the testers are doing - nothing has been done to address these multiple requests though.
Still I believe we can easily find a middle way here: I see no issues to just select a list ‘tasks’ (diff types of contribution) requested from / offered to the testers + VP and than just grade each 193 tester from 1 to 10. each “1” means 5k CVP. Those who have 10 points receives 50k CVPs, those who have 5 points receives 25k CVPs. This is it.
Will it be painful? Yes, pretty much. But at least this is a clear methodology
Will it be fair? Yes
Will it positively affect CVP performance and the project’s future? Yes
Guys, and these testers will get hands on their 50k CVP at the end of April?! Do you know what will happen when these people (not caring about the the project) start selling these huge amounts to the market? Are there any ideas to prevent this massive sell-off?
ahaha yes we know what’s gonna happen
There are vesting schedules but still.
I think the suggestion of what should we do is just above your comment.
I can image how toxic the process will be, but in such cases I always turn my head to the alternative option and the alternative option (keep it as is) will be even more toxic and very harmfull for the project.
Need @powerpoolAdmin to be heavily involved here. Happy to help
Yes it’s still unclear how their cvp earnings were justified. Even with the vesting period 533,333 cvp will be unlocked and distributed to these testers each month for 18 months starting in may totaling 9.6 million in their hands by the end of it… so not much time left. Not looking forward to that massive inflation…
how bout a tester roll call. announce all testers have xx amount of days to claim votes and participate… by not claiming votes within said time frame you forfeit your cvp and VP claim.
this may eliminate the bulk of the problem. and if many testers claim there VP them move forward with the task system.
Exactly as @Defly mentioned I would love to see what tasks the testers carried out and in what quality to deserve 50k CVP each.
I really tend to expect some kind of list of tasks and their states of completion to be provided by the testers to be eligible for the rewards.
Guys, we are talking here about the huge amount of money giving away just like that for nobody-knows-for-what. And I am much less concerned about giving this money to these guys than the effect of the expected sell-off.
From the point of Props quorum of course, Not! But my point that level of testers majority involvement in project is too low. Should we do as active community members smth with that?
Yes, and Add CVP that will be penaliesed to the research fund, ambassadors program & LP as rewards. Or just burn them. The list of tasks will be a good decision.
As I understand from @powerpoolAdmin all the testers were chosen for some reason. So the list should be diversified as different people have different abilities. I see a list of tasks as:
Code analytics and bug fix;
Economical and tech proposals creation;
Social Network activities (twitter, facebook, telegram posts);
Content creation (videos, articles, memes, stickers & so on);
Business development help;
Marketing & Promotional activity in different communities (AMA arrangements, arrangements with influencers and content creators around the world (ex. https://youtu.be/ufXQD8LO7Tc).
So my point is we should understand how much were done by the tester even within one task. Quality over quantity is the main thing, IMHO! Any additions?
It is not easy to define contribution in some cases. For example, there are partners of tier-1 crypto and Defi VCs. They could do 1-2 intros that lead to huge project progress, or just make several useful consulting calls with the team, helping to create a strategy. In the crypto space, it is extremely important even sometimes one proper call can boost your project a lot. This is why we understand that selecting “who will be kicked out” wouldn’t be an easy task. So, on-chain metrics (votings, claiming votes) can be one of the possible indicators. Just look at the wallet list at app.powerpool.finance in the “vesting” section - a lot of wallets never claimed their votes! Such people aren’t engaged at all, and they are the first candidates to return CVP stakes back to the community!
aside of the right people from Bain Capital, USV, a16z, Sequoia, I think any warm intro costs much less than 50k CVP.
I believe there were no such intros.
Guys now I am opening another pandora box, but in case you allocate 15% of TTS to the testers there should have been be at list rough tasks/expectations list, if not, well this will be more toxic than I expected tbh.
But still this is not a rocket science
@Lamer laid out a very simple list of what direction the testers worked on - let it be the testers groups list (I would probably only add “strategy/product consulting”)
I would roughly say that VP claiming (yes/no) should be a clear indicator of a tester activity and take -50% of an allocation (in case no VP claiming - “-10k CVP”)
You can just roughly write down chronologically
a. the tasks which were for ALL the groups of testers
b. the group-specific tasks
and put 1 where a task was executed, 0,5 - somehow executed, 0 - not executed
I would do this straightforward, w/o calculation of grades based on normal distribution among the testers
=> we will have 193 grades (20%, 5%, 100%, 45% etc) and can just multiply 50k by this % to come to the allocation each tester receives
We will probably have some exeptions where a tester helped a lot but didnt claim VP - well, lets consider them manually, I think there will not be more than 10-15 such cases
