Community Activity Rewards 2.0 Ideation

Community Treasury
1

Hi folks,

I wanted to start a new thread here to gather ideas as a community on how we can continue to improve the Community Activity Rewards. This thread is open to observations around the current rewards system, ideas on potential improvements (whether they are easy or difficult to implement). References and changes to flow controls should be cited when relevant, but please keep discussions focused on those aspects of the protocol to another thread. All constructive feedback is welcome here.

A few places to start, but please jump in or post as you please:

What is the purpose of CAR? How well is the current system performing?

What is the general sentiment around the current emissions rate of rewards?

Are CAR contributing to CC volatility?

How else could we approach rewards eligibility? Holding duration, RLY backing threshold for eligibility, etc…

Should Creators have a weekly/monthly/annual cap on rewards?

Do we need to balance rewards in some way given two types of bonding curves, and incoming creators that may have a ton more supporters and RLY backing?

Does the current system incentivize folks to simply move RLY from one coin to the next in pursuit of rewards as some have suggested?

How are RLY rewards being used? Are most going back into the same CC, bridged out, held in RLY etc…

Is there any valuable data on the backend that Rally team can provide to inform this discussion? Additionally, is there any work being done (including analysis) on rewards that can be shared?

Again, please try to keep the conversation focused on how the system is performing and ideas for tests or potential improvements to better serve our goals.

Cheers,
Grand

5 Likes
2

Hi Grand & all,

(FYI this is my first post here so please be gentle haha.)

I think the conversation about rewards is a good one. As someone who holds a few different tokens I’ve definitely felt the pull to chase rewards vs. holding or using coins for creators I actually support and engage with.

I wonder if somehow rewarding sending of coins could be part of the discussion? Right now I feel like simply holding a creator coin and waiting for it to go up and/or pay off rewards isn’t doing much to help engagement between creators and supporters. Perhaps that would help incentivize more innovation with regard to the way supporters can exchange coins for “access and benefits,” per one of the stated goals on the Rally homepage.

Thanks,

  • J.
3

Grand, as usual very clear and concise presentation!

From my recon those with real business plans and use cases and who work so hard are frustrated with the coin jumping. It seems there are some holders of coins that are focused on the “rewards" and short term spike in prices. These holders are not your typical 50, 75, 100 lots of coins. They are in the thousands and sometimes close to 50k. The problem becomes when there is a massive exit of the particular creator and a jump to another coin that is producing rewards.
This becomes very dicey with the sigmodal curve vs the linear. As we have been told and can read, the linear reward curve favors the holder more. This coupled with the more stable price range for linear curve coins allows people to camp out in some coins for a while [eg Jayus$ and ANR$]. They will not lose their rewards for weeks on end due to the piling in for the extra boost.

We will never erase those that look to benefit from gaming the system which is fine as that’s what any smart person would do but you still have to sleep with yourself at night. I feel we should cap rewards at 50k rally a week [under the current system]… this seems to be a number that has been fair to both types of curves looking at the history of rewards. It allows the hard working creator the ability to compete on a level playing field.

As we learn from our experiences, I do believe there should be a plan where there is an incentive to get rewards for hard work. One potential idea would be for creators to set goals for success [which is a business plan?] If those goals are not attained they only get a percentage of the potential weekly rewards. Let’s assume a creator wants to grow their supporter base by 10% in the coming week but they only grow by 5% then the creator receives half of the rewards but then this means we have to change how we distribute rewards. What if we have clearly defined categories and then a top 10 in each category allowing creators to compete with a certain max percentage of rewards? This allows the community to see who is working hard and also allows the creators to see fruits of their labor.

I look forward to input from the community with a positive and constructive dialogue.

2 Likes
4

Hi all. Thanks Grand for starting this important look at Rewards. To center how I look at this, I see Creator Coins as a mutually beneficial economic system for creators and their fans. Where rewards for building value through holding are equally as important as rewards for commerce activity. We’ve built a foundation to allow creators to own their own economies through fan clubs/memberships and marketplace creation/extension. With Campaigns, soon NFTS, and the ability to tip creators in their own coins, we are clearly not just a HODL business.

Right now, I certainly see how much Creator Coin economic activity is tremendously overweight toward holding coins, with farming rewards as the main play versus a more balanced approach of rewarding holding activity AND spending activity (ie, Commerce).

From my own study of use cases to write a weekly blog, I’ve seen how excelling in Commerce is at odds with accumulating rewards. Case study: $WALLS. Without giving out their data, Emery (the band behind $WALLS) has excelled at getting their fans to buy a wide variety of merchandise via $WALLS coin. They are by far and away the best Commerce oriented economy on Rally.io. Given how merch must be fulfilled - customer info collected including shipping address, then plugged into the actual fulfillment vendor website and paid for in cash, they can’t necessarily hold the coins they’ve collected, thus are not often not eligible for Rewards as they choose to focus on the Commerce side of their business, and $WALLS constantly moving in for merch buy and then right back out to cover commerce expenses.

With CAR being a mass incentivization program for Creator Coin adoption, I would certainly advocate for a system that sees some significant portion of Rewards reserved for those Creators who are driving Commerce through coins. We definitely need to focus on true utility aspects of coins; that is, a marriage of active holding (eg, Discord) and active commerce. The “Hold and Re-buy with Rewards” meta is a smart/shrewd use case, but it shouldn’t be the only use case being rewarded.

Coins that lead in Commerce activity should return rewards to the creator and to coin spenders to enhance their long term value and revenue generation activities. We need to reward Commerce based activities.

6 Likes
5

I have posted about this is a few other threads but I will summarize and add some stuff here as well.

For holding rewards there needs to be some type of locking or staking mechanics that do not allow converting out to Rally but do allow the currency to be sent/donated to the Creator. Rally is currently one of the only “DeFi” type rewards system where the assets are not locked or on some type of cool down when generating holding rewards. If there was some type of staking mechanism and the Creator Fee was corrected to be linear, this would solve holding meta.

There should be a mechanic that as above rewards actual economic activity as well. I can speak from experience on using it as a currency in my community, those who are the most engaged in the economy as BUYERS are actually penalized in the current system because they would buy A LOT of our CC but hold very little overall and might be our largest supporters and whales in their own right, bringing lots of liquidity into the system. We don’t have any rewards system for people who are bringing new liquidity into the system, it would even be smarter to take some of the rewards and pay them as a credit to people using Credit Card purchases to buy Creator Coin. We currently reward those with the least amount of friction the most in every way already which is weird to me, we should be rewarding those the most with the most amount of friction so that they will make the switch. There should be some type of reward generated for sending the Creator their own coin, this should also impact overall community rewards as it shows how engaged a creator is with their community.

Overall we need to start incentivizing communities and communal behavior and balance it more with the rewards for short-term speculative behavior. The solutions above will mostly eliminate the rewards chasing you see and the volatility it causes, as far as rewarding economic activity, that is a huge conversation that needs to be had as soon as possible if we want to drive real economic activity that is balanced and sustainable.

3 Likes
6

Jason, I love your description here and the case study with $Walls that illustrates the current tension between commerce based activities and rewards eligibility. I’m 100% for allocating a share of rewards towards commerce based activities - and I think we should go further to be inclusive of @meta4ickal’s suggestion around donations that are often for things like donation requests that fall outside of campaigns and merch redemption. Also, and because I read it earlier this morning, but nearly forgot to mention you here @brokefuse who is equally spot on here! Welcome, and thanks for stepping up to post.

For me, the system we have of rewarding the building of value would be well complemented by rewarding the sustaining of this value. I think the absence of this is why so many new coins both rise high and then tumble so hard. Hodling benefits aside, I’m talking here about RLY rewards for building and sustaining. We’ve created very strong incentives to adopt (“build value” in) new Creator Coins in their first week on the platform. Also, as @sixmofo has outlined under other circumstances. I think the addition of a second bonding curve may also complicate solutions to the extreme volatility driven by rational profit seeking speculators, but it shouldn’t diminish our resolve in pursuing them. Ultimately, if we improve the system to better incentivize the healthy behavior of building, sustaining and transacting in CC economies, then I expect we’ll see the curtailing of less desirable behavior as a byproduct.

@meta4ickal’s suggestion of staking as a way to reward longer term holding seems like one way to allocate some, and perhaps it should be the greater share of CAR towards those that are willing to commit to a Creator beyond the first 1-4 weeks.

Is the rewards cadence too fast? as someone posted on the flow control thread. Would monthly or quarterly rewards be more sustainable? Would we see the frequency of volatility caused by larger players moving in and out of coins reduced, and what kind of downside would we see in adoption of coins as measured by volume of participants? I’d be surprised if we lost more than a handful of users, and of those - few, if any donating fans.

Addressing your thoughts around CC friction @Meta - it could be interesting to do something similar to a program that Balancer has done and renewed at least once. They cover most of the ETH gas transaction costs on trades for a large, pre-approved set of tokens through a reimbursement paid out in BAL. I could see us running a similar pilot program where we cover CC fees and reimburse in RLY. They don’t run the calculations on chain, but manually calculate each week to weed out suspicious activity and for CCs we could also time this to avoid any issue with chargebacks.

I’d be down to support a pilot like that!

Great start to the discussion here. Look forward to hearing more ideas.

1 Like
7

I know we’ve had several talks in the discord about this but I agree with you that staking a coin should be required for rewards with some form of “bonus” for the length of staking. These staked coins should still be spendable on campaign items on the RLY platform.

One idea would be a tiered system where you unlock rewards based on stake duration and coin movement that week alone. (Think of it as an inverse vesting period)

As an example of the unlock schedule:
Stake <1 week = 0%
Stake 1-2 weeks = 20%
Stake 2-4 weeks = 50%
Stake > 4 weeks = 100%
Stake > 12 weeks = 120% bonus?

The rewards should be calculated at end of week only based on net flow (positive or negative value growth) and campaign spends (to encourage spending money such as $WALLS case). Similar to currently take square root of both values and that’s your ranking number.

Since the coins movement/growth each week is taken individually then a person who is reward hunting couldnt just move 50k RLY to a coin to boost rewards as they would never see that value as their first week would give no rewards. Obviously there would still be ways to game this but it makes it much harder and would benefit holders/spenders.

As a note this would also stop reward hunting for coins on the newer bonding curve at launch as there would be no rewards week 1 possible.

1 Like
8

I think that CAR is basically an optimization problem, and to maximize output, we should define what we are solving for.

The discussion should start with that and then the details of how you distribute RLY will be easier to come by.

Problem is:
You allocate X RLY/day (right now X is constant to keep things simple).

You can either:

  1. Try to attract new users to Rally (because they can get RLY rewards)
  2. Try to encourage users to interact with creators
  3. Try to uplift new creators (=change how users will naturally support creators)
  4. Try to encourage certain behavior between creators and fans (such as long-term holding, spending of the creator token, active engagement with the creator etc)

There is a tradeoff between what you pick to optimize, e.g. if you’re optimizing for (1), you will attract many speculators, but if you optimize for (4) and encourage long-term holdings, you get less buzz and less speculation - thus less new users will come.

So the optimal solution changes with respect to the phase Rally is at -
When millions of active daily users will be around, and the network effect in place, (1) is no longer important. And then you can try to optimize how users engage with creators more effectively.

I think right now the most important thing is creating the network effect and roll the snowball down the hill.

We need many active users. So we have to be aggressive with how we distribute Rally imo. Without too much structure and rules around that.

We have one constraint - we want the platform to be fair for creators. They are the heart of this game. So if they feel frustrated with speculation and too much short-term trading, we should definitely do something. But keep in mind that they also want Rally to have millions of users, and they should understand that speculation is primitive in creator tokens that will serve them as the platform grows exponentially.

With respect to that, I would suggest an additional long-term holder reward (sort of a long-term reward cliff). We can do it on tiers as @JBaines suggested. But I think it should be super simple. 3 months → 6 months → 12 months tiers? . Or even let the creator decide (if he has the data he can airdrop tokens however he wants). But these are tactical suggestions. We should think strategically and what we are optimizing for.

BTW - I don’t think any kind of this discussion can be made without data. End of the day this is trial-and-error and the playbook is written as we speak, so you have to understand what KPIs to measure when changing parameters like emission rates, etc.

3 Likes
9

100%. This post came end of week, but I expect the core team can jump in here to help us out in some capacity. Delphi Digital has been pouring over the data and did an expert analysis of the bonding curve design, so I expect they’ll have a lot to add on this front.

We need to be aggressive and smart. We aren’t putting enough RLY into the hands of active users. The aggressive rewards structure we have forces profit seeking speculators to participate in a CC for a limited duration, thereby guaranteeing volatility. I do think there’s a reasonable middle ground, where we limit rewards participation somewhere towards the higher end of true fan participation. What if we doubled the rewards that smaller KYCd supporters received and capped what larger supporters could receive? If we cap rewards at 500 or a 1000 Creator Coins, then we get the lion’s share out to the true fans. What’s the advantage of our current system that encourages speculators to capture so much of the RLY rewards? And how are the top 1% of supporters deploying those rewards? What’s the downside of limiting some share of RLY rewards for the handful of a Creator’s whale fans? Creators know who their top supporters are before they joined Rally. They should! They can take care of these people. And if new fans appear donating large amounts or participating in campaigns then a creator can reach out to them.

I think we should redesign rewards to serve the 90% of users, and 100% of fans and that will do more to attract new users to Rally. This would encourage real network activity from more participants who are active in campaigns and donations, and use the holding benefits and would seem to drive the desired network effects for user growth. Should be easy enough to guard against a sybil attack if someone tries to farm with multiple accounts - particularly as we’ve approved new resources to evaluate network activity. I think that’s a better problem to have than the one we face now with volatility driven by large exits from coins.

This would also absolutely limit how much a speculator purchases in the first place, and therefore exits later on, thereby limiting early and future volatility in a creator economy. In this scenario, the bargain seems to be perhaps less support early on in your coin, less RLY rewards for the creator and more for your true fans, but less volatility in your CC price. I think that’s a bargain every new creator would take.

These are my strong opinions based on observations over the last 8 or 9 months, but I too long for data to guide our approach whatever it may be.

Final thought is that we also need CAR to encompass a carrot for Creators to meet certain KPIs to drive growth and user activity. Perhaps through a separate program that isn’t so user facing, but akin to driver incentives on Lyft/Uber or similar platforms. The creator council has done some of this through the Innovative use case rewards, but I think we can do more to bake this into the system to give creators guidance and incentives for their first weeks/months on the platform.

On a side note, it’s wonderful to see your thoughtful posts, insights and clear desire to improve the protocol. Thank you, Idan! I hope Rally’s future Dao can do something to reward the time and energy of participants like yourself.

Have a great weekend,

Grand

2 Likes
10

I would like to put forth a proposal for a new way to look at rewards. In summary it would encompass a bit of everything for everyone and add a gate for supporters. Since we have a diverse set of creators we should have different metrics for them to compete for rewards.

Let me start off with the supporters gate, no supporter would receive any rewards until they have held the coin for more than 2 weeks and depending where they fell in that reward cycle they would be prorated. This helps the creator focus on following their business plan and not worry about getting wrecked.

Now onto the Creators, the first hurdle would be 100k in rally backing or the equivalent on the linear curve. This pushes a creator to begin their foundation for success.

Then once this is reached the Creator would then have the option to select what growth metric rewards they would like to compete for. This could be 1 or up to 10. The reward period would run for a 2 week period following the current format of Saturday rewards.

Now for The TOP 10 [I am not married to these and open for discussion] - KYC should be applied to all metrics to ensure no gaming/dupe accounts gaming

  1. Growth in supporters (%)
  2. Largest % increase in average transaction size (KYC accounts only)
  3. Highest Average Amount in USD Sent to Creator in Creator Coin (10 minimum different KYC verified user tx’s)
  4. Largest % increase in Rally Backing (this WOULD include Rally converts, see following)
  5. Largest amount of “new” liquidity brought into Rally ecosystem through direct buy-in using Credit Card, crypto transfer, etc (any NEW liquidity entering the sidechain, converts from Rally would be excluded from this metric)
  6. Number of transactions per KYC user supporter
  7. Most Rally Backing
  8. Largest amount of concurrent holders
  9. Highest Average Balance % change between this week and 4 week average
  10. Highest Average User Balance

10 rewards in each category so 100 awards are up for grabs. Currently we award close to $2m rally a week of which I believe is way too much. So I propose 500k max with 50k for each of the Top 10. The rewards would be awarded as below

Percentage Reward
1st 30% 15,000
2nd 20% 10,000
3rd 13% 6,250
4th 10% 5,000
5th 8% 3,750
6th 6% 3,000
7th 5% 2,500
8th 4% 2,000
9th 3% 1,500
10th 2% 1,000

Total 100% 50,000

…but we have to keep in mind these rewards are awarded to motivate. So a creator will have to do some extra homework in order to attain these rewards A creator would have to log onto a website a few days before the next observation period [maybe Bonfire can be used to do this part]. Pending on what rewards the creator is trying to get they will have to set goals for the period. For example, if a creator applies for 1, 3, 8 they would then have to set realistic goals for themselves to attain. A creator believes they will increase their base by 3% over the observed time frame and log that on Bonfire. Now, let’s assume the creator winds up getting the #2 reward for the observed period but that percentage they achieved was only 1.5% thus 50% of their goal. The rewards would mathematically be reduced by the amount they missed their target. So therefore they would only receive 5,000 in rewards. Not so great but it forces the creator to have a strong business plan and know their community to achieve success. So ultimately if you won every category you have the ability to get 150k in rewards and would deserve that for the hard work you and the community did but you would also have to correctly lay out your “goals for the 2 weeks of observations”.

I am a firm believer that when rewards are involved there will always be individuals looking to game the system as we have seen in the last few months but now this proposal adds a few layers of complexity and forces the creator to have a strong business plan.

3 Likes
11

I worked with Sixy to come up with a top 10, and if this is combined with staking for community rewards I think you will see things along the lines of your posts!

1 Like
12

I agree, but I think it is very hard to control these things in the beginning. I always lean towards simplicity because starting to engineer the incentives is hard and can lead to over structure. But I’m game :slight_smile:
looking forward to what hear what the core team thinks.

Regarding the role of speculation - lots of stuff started with speculation and grew big because of it - I think the best example is Bitcoin. Speculation is probably the best marketing tool on earth because greed is such a powerful motive. It can make the platform grow faster than anything else. So as long as the core platform isn’t hurt by this behavior (if it does so it should be limited for sure), I think that in the starting phase it’s fine.

Users will come for the profit but will stay for the platform.

Thanks! Looking forward to helping some more :sunglasses:

2 Likes
13

IMHO I think it can hurt. This is very much an anecdotal observation, but from what I have seen following a couple of different creators, it appears to me from looking at their coin activity that tipping/sending activities seem to drop off if a coin goes up a lot in value. This makes sense to me and frankly I’ve felt it in my own activities – if I tip a musician for a performance with a 10 creator coins that are worth 50 cents each this week, but then next week the same coins are worth 1 dollar each, I’m suddenly thinking “hmm maybe I should only tip a couple coins 'cus they are going up in value.” I think there’s a natural desire to hold on to something that seems to be increasing in value 'cus let’s face it, we all have some degree of FOMO no matter how hard we try to fight it. None of this is based on data, just my observations and personal feelings.

1 Like
14

I think @Idan_Levin is hitting the nail on the head. Whether we like it or not, the platform needs whale investors or institutional investors to be incentivized to leave their money in the platform. I agree with placing a bonus reward of sorts if someone holds a coin for longer, but we wouldn’t want the hurdle to be too large cause then people will take their attention elsewhere. Rally has the potential to be the perfect balance between art and business. There’s a reason it’s a better idea than Patreon. If people simply wanted to support an artist, they can do that on sites like Patreon.

One thing I want to call attention to though is Rally opens up the possibility of people supporting creators they’ve never even heard before. So whether they’re a true fan or not, the creator is still going to benefit by the temporary spikes in weekly activity so long as they haven’t sold off their stake in coins. If you take that opportunity away, then all the creator has left is the support from their initial community.

At the end of the day, the creator still benefits more if you take a look at their monthly average over 12 months even with the pumps and dumps.

Looking at $JAYUS coin for example, it has 486 supporters with a total support volume of $471,000. That’s about $1,000 per person. The average everyday fan is not spending $1,000 in a month even with their favorite artist, film maker, influencer, or entertainer. While $JAYUS does not see all that money, they do greatly benefit from the surge in weekly rewards since they own a good percentage of the token from the start.

And if it has a lull for 4 weeks, the next 4 weeks will likely see an uptick with the current reward system.

In order to avoid as many weekly reward chasers, you could have it be that a person receives 75% of their weekly reward for 3 weeks, then 100% of the total the 4th week. Some sort of tiered system will help, but at the end of the day, if the goal is to sustain the career of supporters, we’re going to need institutional money to do that. People already know they don’t have to support artists or creators because they can get all the content they want for $10/month on Spotify, YouTube, Netflix, etc.

There needs to be strong incentive to pour into this new category.

For the people who do want to support a creator long term, the extra reward incentive for holding a coin longer should help.

I also think those that drive more commerce through their coin should be awarded more percentage weekly reward rather than the 4 weekly average system. This does not get rid of the problem of weekly reward chasing, but does ensure that those who are driving commerce get rewarded more even from people who aren’t necessarily true supporters.

1 Like
15

Overall, I think a lot of ideas in here are good, but what I’m seeing mostly looks like some people being more on the artistic side and some on the business side. Rally has the opportunity to be a blend of both. We obviously need more incentive than people supporting out of the good will of their heart, and we want to be an attractive alternative that’s not necessarily an investment, but gives rewards for being an early adopter on the platform. And even if some are treating it as investment, we recognize that the creator is still benefitting from those interactions and people are leaving their money in $RLY long term.

16

@nathanielomarimoore I think this is correct, but I personally feel the rewards system right now leans much more toward the business side (chasing the best return in rewards and price increase) vs. artistic (purchasing/sharing/tipping).

Would you agree or not? If not, what do you think am I missing?

17

I think in order to get to the artistic side, you have to get to the business side first. As creatives, sometimes we can see that as unfortunate, but I don’t think it has to be. I brought up the total support volume/ the total number of backers for $JAYUS token because the average everyday person simply doesn’t have $1,000/month to support their favorite artists.

So even if institutional investors or whales are chasing rewards, the benefit that the creators will get from those boosts in price activity will even out the rewards cycles. Right now the cycles would go in increments of 4 weeks with the current system. However, if we added some holding extra rewards for holding coins longer or a tiered system this could possibly even it out so that rewards are steady among creators who are actively pushing their projects.

I think any large change to the system that would hinder rewards too much would do more harm than good. However, a small change to encourage holding (not mandate it) may be helpful to deter large pump and dumps. Are people still going to pump and dump? Yes. But so long as that creator still owns a percentage of their token and partakes in the benefits of that pump and dump by gaining weekly rewards as well, so be it. Even with some of the categories listed by @sixmofo, pump and dumps will still be possible.

As long as the system is structured where the creator is benefitting from it as well, it should be allowed. Even if that means that we decrease the flow algorithm by allowing fans/investors to pay more $RLY for the transactions. If they want to pull money out faster, have them give a bigger fee of the token back to the creator. Again, not too huge a fee to deter people from using the platform, but large enough that they’ll have to think about it.

2 Likes
18

@Idan_Levin has hit on the key point. What is the objective? I would like to add something to this question. Whose objective are we talking about? The optimal objective for the network is not likely optimal for the individual creator and may not be optimal for coin holder that is simply trying to support their creator.

Let’s layout the constituencies:

  1. The Rally Network (which is the most ambiguous term but let’s say is optimization on a system basis to maximize benefit overall even if it benefits some constituencies more than others).
  2. Rally, the company
  3. Creators
  4. Creator fans/followers/community members
  5. Investors

In this case, you really have four constituencies (2-5) that collectively make up the Rally network but we want to consider the whole as well as the parts. Some individuals fall into a single category and some in multiple categories (even all of the categories).

The point here is that I fully agree we should start with the objective and not the mechanic to ensure the mechanic is actually addressing the target objective. However, there is not an objective that impacts all of the constituencies (or stakeholders if you prefer) equally.

We should also recognize there are positive and negative objectives. A positive objective is to target something that will lead to growth or some other benefit. A negative objective is to curtail or eliminate something we consider to be a bad behavior. Speculation is the one that gets most often referenced here. What I’d suggest is forgetting about the “solutions” for a moment because based on the discussion I don’t believe there is basic agreement on the objective. If we can get consensive on one or more objectives we are more likely to succeed with implementing a mechanic and foreseeing unintended consequences which are rife in many of the actions taken to date.

So, here is my question for everyone here. What 1-3 problems would you like to address with 1 being the most important to you and 2 and 3 in rank order of lessor importance (but still important to you ;^)?

Of course, you only need to post one but not more than three.

3 Likes
19

For me at least, the number 1 problem is incentivizing engagement between creators and authentic fans, as opposed to only buying, holding, and selling.

My sense right now is that the vast majority of movement in the creator coins actually has nothing to do with the “creative” part at all. How many holders of $1,000+ in JAYUS follow them on TikTok, or even care about their content? I don’t really know but I’m going to guess very few, if any.

Yes, creators benefit if their coin goes up, but what does that have to do with their creative practice or fan engagement? What does it have to do with creating “vibrant and independent economies with their communities” which is the stated purpose of Rally on the homepage?

If Rally is strictly about using big money to make more money with creators as a front, can it really be said to be living up to its promise?

1 Like
20

A little of your attention

As the practice of leading projects that want to stimulate society to hold their coins (example of DAO Maker) shows, it is better to motivate people by the number of coins and the storage time of coins. Those. if you hold a relatively small amount but for a very long time, then you can receive as much as a large but recent holder.

Yours faithfully

1 Like