Community Activity Rewards 2.0 Ideation

Creator Coin volatility. If I were to quickly think of the top three contributors to volatility in a coin: bonding curve design, fluctuations in. $RLY price, and buying/selling activity of the CC.

We’ve addressed bonding curve design to limit the price impact of buying/selling activity. We cannot directly address $RLY price changes at the CC level (at least no ideas have been put forward yet). However buying/selling activity has been proven to be driven largely by the CAR Rewards system.

If you invite uncapped participation AND uncapped rewards at the CC level, then you should expect large buys and sells that have a disruptive effect on what are small economies. If we allow uncapped participation, but cap the rewards at something reasonable as I suggest - perhaps 1k coins - then you ensure a smaller exodus when the rewards eligibility ends, and smaller RLY rewards on the front end. You also ensure less volatility in the underlying economy, so less disruption of true fans participation with a Creator.

To sum it up, rewards system is disrupting economies by creating strong incentives for large participants to cycle through CCs in pursuit of rewards. Create a reasonable maximum rewards per CC for each participant outside of the Creator in order to limit the volatility.

1 Like

Personally, I don’t think volatility is a bad thing. You’re going to have it with small cap stuff and the community at large needs the speculation to grow. I think we have to be careful what we wish for with any changes. They may seem like they’re what we want in the short term, but I would venture to say we would actually be more frustrated with the long term declines in growth should we limit speculation too much. A few small changes such as rewards for holding coins longer is fine, but the added benefit of having people invest in creators they don’t know far outweighs the downside in the long run. Although, after doing some digging Rally DOES have it setup where people who sell off a CC have to pay a fee to both the creator and Rally, so the more they do that, the more they have to pay. As long as a creator isn’t selling off their stake and their true fans aren’t selling off their coins, they’ll both benefit in the long run. I feel those small changes I’ve listed previously should suffice for now without compromising the growth potential at large for the platform, creators and investors as a whole.

I think the Creators feel differently about the volatility (and have spoken up in forums and discord to this effect) and the feeling of being “held hostage” by the presence of large speculators in their economies. I think the platform loses far less than the Creators gain by putting in some reasonable caps on rewards for a coin.
These generous caps wouldn’t preclude speculators from participating, it would just place some limits. I think it would be very healthy for the coins and the data will prove it out whenever we can get a look at it.

1 Like

@jose_delphi @kevindelphi
I hope your team is doing well and enjoying the work on TBCs and rewards! Would any of the Delphi digital team working on behalf of the Rally community be able to weigh in on this discussion? We could really use your expertise and your access to the platform data to bring us closer to actionable improvements. If you have some things in the works, even a rough timeline of when we could expect some suggestions to come out of your research could help the community determine if we should take action in the interim or get to work here. Thanks!

Link to forum post

1 Like

@Grand yes, we’ll be chiming in with some thoughts on this topic soon. We’re working with the Rally team on a phase II proposal and are trying to get that ironed out this week. Will have more on this in the coming days but we’re starting to dig into some of the key issues / questions that’ve been raised in this post. Hope this helps!

1 Like

I think we do have to account for the silent majority on these issues as well though. From my own personal experience marketing for over 15,000 music artists so far, what often happens is that when someone is happy with a service, they simply keep using it. Fortunately or unfortunately, the only feedback you get on the administrative side is that people keep using your platform. The bias we would see with this issue is that those who are most passionate on the opposing side are quite often overwhelmingly the ones speaking up. This is just human nature. For example, billions of people use companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google. And the vast majority of them simply continue using the service with little to no feedback for the administration. However, if I went to look at reviews on Trustpilot or another site for these same companies, you would see the majority of people leaving bad reviews. This would not be an accurate reflection of how the community at large feels. I am only cautioning against making drastic changes without accounting for the silent majority. I’ve already listed previously some small changes I believe would be helpful.

as nathniel mentioned ‘needs the speculation to grow.’ I think having an open market with price discovery is needed or people can’t understand how a thing is valued.

Perhaps an orderbook system so people can express value for real. There are exchange systems to do that today.