Rewards Evolution

We’ve currently got 3 rewards mechanisms available for positive usage of the Rally Network. With this post I’ll attempt to detail the current state of each and work towards a proposal to iterate forward on each of these existing pieces. Additionally, I’ll attempt to initiate a discussion on a new reward system that encourages desirable behaviors within the network. I’ll try to do this in a way that individual design changes explored could make sense as either standalone proposals or combined into a single proposal substantially overhauling the system.

Yield Delegating Vaults (YDV)

YDVs wrap deposits into underlying Yearn vaults. As these deposits earn via Yearn strategies, accumulated earnings are transferred to the community treasury and an amount of $RLY proportional to this transfer is made available as a reward for depositors. The amount of $RLY made available is multiple of the tokens transferred to the treasury configurable on each YDV. The multiple is expressed relative to the tokens transferred to the treasury (i.e. the $USDC vault transfers $yUSDC to the treasury and the multiple expresses how many $RLY should be emitted for each $yUSDC transferred). Since each token type transferred by each YDV to the treasury has a different value, this multiple is different for each YDV and is intended to be relative to the value of the token that YDV supports.


  • 500MM $RLY allocated for distribution via YDVs at launch
    • Minimize risk by transferring from the 500MM pool to the relevant YDV smart contracts on a periodic basis
    • ~30MM transferred to contract to date
    • ~20MM emitted as rewards for depositors
  • Multiples described above initially set with the intention of doubling the APY of underlying Yearn vaults
    • Multiples have not been changed since initial launch configuration
    • Price changes to $RLY mean these vaults are currently offering ~200% APY
  • Early confusion about reward timing led to further incentivizing the most popular YDV with a per block reward via the Liquidity Provider reward program
  • Basic usage data
    • Tokens worth approximately $200K remain in legacy YDVs earning no $RLY rewards
    • Total deposits in active YDVs ~$26MM
      • Recent surge in deposits after holding fairly stable at ~$12MM for the last 2 months
    • Currently emitting ~600K $RLY / day while collecting ~14K USD equivalent tokens for the community treasury
    • Virtually all deposits are in the 3Crv YDV
  • Yearn is in the process of deploying Vaults v2
    • Currently unclear what this means for existing Yearn vaults
    • Gated launch of v2 vaults showing promising early results with stable coin yields against USDC and DAI topping 30% APY

It seems to me that the YDVs are roughly doing what we’d like them to. It is unclear whether the per block incremental reward for the 3Crv YDV is a substantial driver of its success relative to other vaults with similar underlying returns or if it’s simply the relative attractiveness that goes along with being the biggest.

I’ve seen some discussion around concern that YDV rate of emissions is theoretically uncapped within the 500MM allocated; but I’m of the belief that, since these rewards help build the community treasury, the overall rate of emission is less important that ensuring the returns are attractive enough to motivate deposits and moderate enough that the community treasury is building appropriately relative to the $RLY emitted.

With the above in mind, I’d propose:

  • No adjustment to the per block reward granted to the 3Crv YDV from the liquidity rewards program
  • Ongoing, monthly reset of the multiplier on each YDV to take into account $RLY price change with a target of 2x return of underlying Yearn vaults
    • Tentatively suggest using trailing 7 (or 30d) average price as a basis for resetting multiplier
  • Assess compatibility with Yearn v2 Vaults; consider upgrades as necessary

Liquidity Rewards

350MM $RLY earmarked at launch as incentives for deposits in the liquidity rewards program.


  • Liquidity rewards contract emits 38 $RLY / block (~7.5MM $RLY / month)
  • Current pool weights divide these 38 $RLY across 6 pools as follows:
    • 13% BAL RLY/USDC 90–10
    • 13% BAL RLY/USDC 10–90
    • 13% BAL RLY/ETH 90–10
    • 13% BAL RLY/ETH 10–90
    • 35% UNI RLY/ETH
    • 13% y3Crv Yield Delegating Vault (aka LP)
  • Community discussion has raised questions about the ongoing incentives for the y3Crv YDV and the relative risk/return for the various liquidity pools against each other and the YDVs
    • No clear proposals have emerged but I think the general sentiment conveyed is Uniswap LPs deserve a greater return and the y3Crv YDV share of the rewards would be better allocated back to one of the liquidity pools

The nice thing in my mind about per block rewards is that it should enable pretty direct discovery of user preferences. If rewards seem high, more money will flow; if rewards seem low, less money will flow. At this point, the APYs seem to have settled into a place where depositors are not moving around much and are finding some balance between re-depositing rewards for compounding gains and selling them on the open market. Additionally, the total depth of the liquidity pools relative to daily volume still appears on the high end relative to other comparably sized Balancer and Uniswap pools.

With the above in mind, I’d propose:

  • No change to current liquidity rewards

Community Activity Rewards (CAR)

The 7.5B $RLY allocated to promote network usage represents 50% of the fully diluted supply; CAR is the first program that draws from this bucket and currently distributes ~

Details on the design are available here:

Real time view of weekly rewards available here:


  • At the current creator count, the total pool made available for CAR is 1000 $RLY / creator / day = 39K $RLY / day
  • Rewards are calculated/accrue hourly and are distributed weekly
    • The difference in accrual and distribution means all community members holding coin at the time of rewards distribution are rewarded evenly and potentially independent of their contribution to rewards accrual
  • Rewarding at the community level makes the program easier to understand for short term buyers/sellers and harder to understand for long term holders
    • In particular, it’s not clear to creators how they should think about or value these rewards apart from them generally being good for everyone participating in their community
    • Because holders would only perceive the rewards effect through changes in the value of their holdings, there is little/no perception of a positive reward effect if net negative demand for a coin in a given week is larger than the rewards distribution (i.e. if 10K $RLY are added to a coin’s liquidity and 10K $RLY are distributed to users who convert out of this coin, a single holder will see no change)
  • Relatively inactive communities create opportunities to redirect large reward distributions to coins with very little real usage to the benefit of the individuals choosing to move in and out of these coins solely to farm rewards

I believe the current reward design began with the thinking that consistently increasing total liquidity backing a coin is one of the strongest indicators of the health of a creator coin community and should therefore be the basis of a reward system that benefits the entire community. However, the mechanics of the calculation and distribution mean we’re not quite incentivizing positive movement in this indicator; instead, we’re enabling active traders to capture rewards independent of their effect on this metric, and we’re generally increasing/concentrating the volatility of a creator coin around the timing of reward distributions.

I believe a straightforward solution to keep this system consistent with original intent would be to:

  • Programmatically add and remove coins from CAR eligibility based on a calculation that encompasses usage and active participants. Coins below eligibility thresholds would not receive any rewards for a period
  • Distribute coin rewards to users based on pro rata ownership of the coin as opposed to simply increasing the backing liquidity pool
  • Align calculation and distribution intervals to ensure anyone benefiting from a reward distribution is doing so in more direct proportion to their impact on reward allocation
    • Target hourly but introduce some jitter/randomness

These changes would:

  • Prevent farming of inactive coins to the detriment of active communities
  • Make rewards distributions more tangible with visible changes to coin balances while

generally preserving the magnitude and equitable distribution of the current system

  • This would be particularly apparent to creators themselves relative to current state

  • This should make it easier to understand how rewards work and enable communities to better activate against reward earning behavior

  • Discourage concentration of activity around a less frequent reward distribution

Other Rewards Considerations

In addition to the above, community discussion has suggested considering the following for either a modified allocation of CAR or new rewards mechanism:

  1. Sell activity within a community increasing CAR allocation to the benefit of users who remain
  2. Transactional activity aligned with goods and services moving within a creator economy
  3. Net platform usage/users attributable to a particular creator coin
  4. Collaborative efforts spanning multiple creators and/or communities
  5. Novel use cases pioneered by creators and/or communities

I’d like to invite discussion in this area with the intention of getting to a proposal that allocates additional $RLY from the network usage bucket to a new reward mechanism that exists alongside YDVs, Liquidity Rewards, and CAR. Ideally, a new incentive structure alongside these that introduces incentives roughly on the order of magnitude of the existing CAR or Liquidity Rewards systems focused on desirable behaviors within the side chain creator economies.


I’ve offered my thoughts on the current state along with proposals to evolve the existing rewards systems and begin discussion on introducing a new one. Let’s have a lively discussion that gets us to a proposal for appropriate evolutionary design of our existing systems and the addition of a new reward mechanic that incentivizes important behaviors not covered by the existing system.


I have gone fairly heavy into the Vaults at the current rates. So from a purely short term, self interested perspective, I would want them to continue. But given that Rally Community Treasury is getting so little in comparison to RLY distributed, my initial thinking is I support this proposal.


Good text but bad idea…

The most of LP were atrracted by good APY, so what will you achieve when trying to reduce it?

  1. 43M TVL will decrease dramatically
  2. Project treasury’s income will be reduced in 5-8 times due to decreased crv pools token sent to iearn vaults…

Do u intend these consequences?
We need to consider - all money to treasury comes from RLY/ETH market. So, why not to let market decide the amount received by the YDV providers?

If it would be too much money in vaults the price of RLY will drop and APY decreased making LP go away, why u plan to interfere this process?
I amazed by projects and sell just a 10-15% of my rewards and I am sure - more money in treasury = more possibilities will arise!
New tech team members, new ambassadors, new collabs - money will make money
Please, do not shoot to your own head

Sir, we all absolutely sure Rally Community Treasury will receive less in case rate will decrease…
So what are your goals:

  • to reach weird fairness
  • make Rally Community Treasury grows as quickly as it grows now increaseing day by day (TVL is rising now)

The vaults had roughly $20M in them from almost the beginning, and it never left even when rates where in line with this proposal. If it goes back to that level or even lower, but is sustainable over years vs present rate which it might dry up in a year, I think that is beneficial. Giving out RLY to net 10% of value in one year makes less sense than the same where the community captures 50% of value over the three to five years.

1 Like

I think this captures it precisely.

I don’t think APY discovering equilibrium via RLY price rather than setting it based on capital needs of the project is in the best interest of treasury accumulation or project sustainability.

I honestly think you guys have captured the viewpoints I can see for and against modifying the YDV APYs and this is likely the type of decision that’s not going to achieve broad consensus because the differing view points are completely valid and simply reflect differing time preferences. In these cases, it’s probably in the best interest of the project to avoid protracted debate and simply put it to a community vote. I’d advocate continuing the discussion around improving CAR and introducing other rewards while moving the YDV portion here to snapshot for a formal vote.

Thanks all for the discussions. Let’s bring the YDV proposal to the community for a vote. We can continue discussion here on the YDV topic as well as on improving CAR, liquidity rewards and introducing other rewards. Snapshot proposal posting shortly.

1 Like

I will say, that I feel like the team rushes through the discussion phases. It was posted one day ago, and literally some people couldn’t comment until a couple hours ago. Two comments and then it goes to snapshot seems very fast.

@WagMore Appreciate your perspective on speed of this portion of the discussion going to proposal - and thanks for your input in this thread and on Discord. On the topic of YDVs, as @DaddyFatSax put it, key elements of this discussion have been identified, and there are very valid view points on both sides. Could sit in protracted debate for some time. Note that discussions can/should continue simultaneously with an active Snapshot proposal, which will be live through 11:30 AM on Thursday. Crypto moves fast - one side of this position is that the interests of the community are best served by moving quickly here, in which case there’s benefits to engaging the discussion simultaneously with the proposal.

1 Like

The APYs for the YDVs are great incentives for people to support the Rally treasury, and should remain the same. However, there should be more mechanisms that encourage long term holding of the coin received from YDV (ie vesting) to prevent large dumps and maintain a committed community

1 Like

I’m going to chime in here on the CAR program as it seems like YDV and LP already have good direction, and I feel like I’m a lot less useful in offering feedback on those programs anyway.

CAR on the otherhand is something I have spent a great deal of time thinking about over the last 2 weeks, as well as playing around in the different creator coins to see how right I am in figuring out how easy it can be to game the system as is. Currently, I feel the system is too easy to take advantage of and I’d like to do a deeper dive on why I believe that, and my theories on how we can fix it.

I’ll start by first defining three types of users defined in an entirely arbitrary manner according to how I see them:

  1. Farmer - The farmer is someone who cares neither for the Rally ecosystem, nor the individual creators. The farmers entire goal is to amass capital by abusing the rules of the system in their favor. The farmer is happy to make a profit and the expense of others and should widely be considered as the worst type of user in the system, as they extract value but tend to provide very little.

  2. Supporter - The supporter is the opposite of the farmer. While the supporter is likely to be happy if they see an increased return, their reason for purchasing was not profit motivated in any way. They could’ve chosen to altruistically support a creator monetarily by purchasing the coin, then donating it. Or they could have purchased to gain access to fan benefits that they would’ve happily spent the money on entirely. In any case they are here for special rewards from creators or to blindly support creators because they genuinely care for them. Supporters are an overwhelming positive for the system, and are probably the most sought after user for all other users in the ecosystem.

  3. Backer (Farmer + Supporter) - The name on this one might need some work, but I’ll stick to this for now. Backers fall somewhere in the middle of the other two users. They want to support creators and the overall ecosystem, but they are much happier if they can gain something at the same time. They either want to feel special because of the coins they hold, or they want to gain monetary value with the creators. They may speculate on coins changing value, and sell when they feel overpriced, but almost always with the intention of keeping some money in the system and seeing this through with creators long term. An ecosystem that is designed around backers will, in my opinion, garner the most long term success.

While users may exist on more of a spectrum than these categories imply, I believe having words to describe the use cases of the system will help illustrate some of my points.

Let me begin by addressing the statement the current reward system was designed around: “Consistently increasing total liquidity backing a coin is one of the strongest indicators of the health of a creator coin community and should therefore be the basis of a reward system that benefits the entire community.”

This post addresses that the implementation of calculation and distribution is not incentivizing positive movement, but I think it fails to address that this philosophy doesn’t incentivize positive movement on its own. Consistently increasing total liquidity backing a coin is not always an indication of a healthy ecosystem. I would argue that speculation on a currency is not healthy, yet with heavy speculation you will most definitely see an increase in total liquidity. Even if every user of a particular coin was a farmer with the sole intent of maximizing profit at the expense of the ecosystem, you would still see an increase in liquidity. This means the farmers can buy a coin on speculation, wait until the reward drop, then sell and book their profit.

As the system stands now this process is far too easy, as addressed in the post. Farmers can, with almost no risk, wait until moments before the reward drop (which is definitively advertised) purchase the creator with the highest rewards, and then sell for a 20-30% benefit only minutes later. In addition to siphoning value from the system in this manner, farmers are more dramatically increasing volatility within the individual creator coins, especially around the reward period. For supporters and backers, these price movements are undesirable.

I’ll go over the items suggested and give my thoughts as to which ones I think will give improvement and which need more revision:

Programmatically add and remove coins from CAR eligibility based on a calculation that encompasses usage and active participants. Coins below eligibility thresholds would not receive any rewards for a period

I’m not a fan of entirely removing eligibility based on calculations. I think if we can define what calculations produce eligibility, we would be better off just using those calculations as part of the reward formula. In any case we need to do a deeper dive on calculations for usage and activity.

Distribute coin rewards to users based on pro rata ownership of the coin as opposed to simply increasing the backing liquidity pool

I actually don’t think this change really makes a difference besides catering to a specific users perspective. Whether the value is distributed by additional coins or increasing liquidity, the end value result is the same. Except, one minor difference, inflation towards coin gate rewards. I.E. someone with 9 coins before an 11% reward distribution will now have 10 coins for a coin-gated role in discord. Not saying I’m necessarily against this change, I just don’t quite see it as a major benefit. Maybe I’m missing something with regards to how this might change how the creator coin moves along the bonding curve?

Align calculation and distribution intervals to ensure anyone benefiting from a reward distribution is doing so in more direct proportion to their impact on reward allocation

I see this as a major step in the right direction. At a minimum this eliminates a lot of the risk-free value extraction that can be done by farmers. They will now need to actively sit in creator coins for longer time periods to extract rewards from that coin. I would even go so far as to say that this should be done on a block to block basis like many defi protocols, but would understand hourly if it is significantly easier to develop.

I also don’t believe these three proposed changes prevent farming of inactive coins, unless our usage and activity calculations are perfectly designed. In all likelihood I think it will be hard to differentiate between activity from speculation and activity from backers and even supporters. I really think we need some changes that specifically address farmers activity. Let’s review the “other” considerations.

  1. Sell activity within a community increasing CAR allocation to the benefit of users who remain

This was originally my idea so I’m likely a bit biased here, but I think this does a good job of addressing farmer activity and solely rewards backers and supporters. In order for a farmer to abuse this reward they would have to sell the very coin they need to hold to capture the reward. Of course, it will need to be designed in a way that the seller cannot just repurchase the coin to capture the reward. Users who stick with a coin while others sell, will get some rewards for hanging around, while farmers who leave give back some value to the ecosystem they leveraged. I think this change has the added benefit of decreasing overall volatility as rewards will keep coming into the ecosystem on the way down and give incentive for users to hold, rather than only having incentive to chase a coin with higher reward yield.

  1. Transactional activity aligned with goods and services moving within a creator economy

To be honest I am unsure of this change. I think we would need to see more examples and definitions of how this could work, but overall I like the thinking.

  1. Net platform usage/users attributable to a particular creator coin

My initial thoughts on this type of reward mechanism is that it would be too easy to game. How would we defend from artificial activity performed only to generate rewards? Perhaps this type of reward could work, but I think it would need to be paired with something additional that protects from artificial manipulation. I’d be interested to hear more thoughts on how that could work.

  1. Collaborative efforts spanning multiple creators and/or communities
  2. Novel use cases pioneered by creators and/or communities

I’m grouping my response to these because they feel similar in spirit. I like the idea, though I think this is very different from the current reward metrics in that it seems more arbitrary than the current metric based CAR system. I do like the spirit of the ideas but think this could almost be an entirely separate reward system, where the community votes on rewards to give creators based on how well they think that creator collaborated or pioneered a use case. Maybe we could have a set amount of rewards to distribute weekly, and the community could vote for creators they think contributed the most. We would still have to guard against members of the community voting selfishly despite not feeling the coin they are in contributed to innovation.

Well that was a bit of an essay, but I hope it is helpful for sparking some community thought on the current CAR program. I truly wish to see Rally become one of the best platforms out there and think proper incentivization is the key to growth. Let’s band together and figure out the best way to tackle this. Thanks for reading :slight_smile:

  • Mason
1 Like

Thanks for the response. Some clarifying remarks in response to specific observations in your post

This would result in an increase in liquidity at the time of entry and a decrease in liquidity at the time of exit and would therefore specifically not be “continuously increasing”. I think perhaps you’re considering a single reward period vs multiple, continuous periods. At any rate, I think an incentive design that maximizes its reward distribution in line with ongoing, desirable behavior is what we should be thinking about even if single period variability introduces short term deviations.

If they were distributed as creator coins yes, if distributed as RLY as opposed to increasing the liquidity in the creator coin pool it would impact most of the calculations you’ve cited as problematic

The most direct concern I have with this approach is the case where a farmer owns a large percentage of a coin and sells less than 100% of their stack. In this case, they are directly benefiting from exiting a coin which seems like a bad thing. With a large stack, it is simultaneously possible to sell off a large amount of a coin and still have a large amount of that coin. Optimal behavior would slide based on the weighting you choose here but it seems this would just make selling subsets of your coins during each reward period a part of the farming process.

To be clear, I’m specifically advocating that we consider additional rewards systems that run in parallel to wherever CAR or its replacement lands.

I really like a lot of the things you’ve outlined and a taxonomy of user archetypes should be helpful in describing the behaviors we’re interested in incentivizing; appreciate the thoughtfulness in your post.


When are the Community Activity Rewards distributed?

Rewards will be distributed at the end of each week, on Saturdays at 12AM UTC. At that time, $RLY rewards will be added to each Creator Coin community that earned rewards. If no communities earn rewards at that time, the $RLY allocated for that week will remain in the Network Usage Reward bucket and can be used for future Community Activity or other Network Usage rewards.

We have been monitoring the scalpers of the system come time of the rewards. We have watched and jotted down some “jumps” in volume in some quiet CCs that have low donation sizes from their community and then we have see other CCs that have been proactive and pushing their coin on a daily basis and have seen massive distortions starting on Friday before rewards and then as soon as the rewards are paid someone nails it perfectly and exits the CC coin. As a believer in the platform and some of the Creator’s economies we look to support them with becoming a fan and buyer of their CC. In doing this we have recognized that some Creators are amazing and do a very good job at marketing their CC and they get rewarded by a higher price and the bonus. Then enter the scalpers that are destroying the hard work of the motivated Creator. Other projects we have been involved in, trickle out bonuses over time and at different intervals to discourage the scalper. Therefore can we look at some type of time delay of rewards that would drop over a longer duration of time {2 weeks or over 2 months} as to help keep scalpers from the system?

1 Like

Let’s bring the discussion on community activity rewards to a close. Along with the suggested edits, I think the proposal on the table is the following evolutionary adjustments on top of the existing rewards calculations:

  • Programmatically add and remove coins from CAR eligibility based on a calculation that encompasses usage and active participants. Coins below eligibility thresholds would not receive any rewards for a period
  • Distribute coin rewards to users as RLY based on pro rata ownership of the coin as opposed to simply increasing the backing liquidity pool
  • Align calculation and distribution intervals to ensure anyone benefiting from a reward distribution is doing so in more direct proportion to their impact on reward allocation; target hourly and introduce some jitter/randomness
  • Introduce a calculation based on sells/converts out of a coin to the benefit of holders that remain
  • Introduce a timing delay between rewards accrual and delivery that promotes continued holding of a creator coin to maximize rewards received

Since this is a pretty large set of desired changes to the system, I would also include:

  • Allow developer discretion to deploy upgrades to this system as they are ready as opposed to consolidating into a single, one-time change
  • Define parameterized boundaries within which developers can exercise discretion for tuning/testing

I’ll plan to consolidate responses/comments received in the next 48 hours and then work with a registry member to submit a proposal.


You’ve got my support.

Thanks DFS for leading up this discussion, and this conclusion makes sense to me

1 Like

Completely agreed on all counts DFS! And thx for leading us to a swift conclusion on a complicated and multi-faceted topic.

My 2c on each category:

  • CAR Eligibility - I like the idea of having qualification based on a weighted importance of Creator Activity >>> Coin Buys >> Coin Sends (ideally to Creator) > Other Stats. If a Creator isn’t active, and using their CC in some way that incentivizes holding and inbound Tx, no other actions in that coin have real longterm network value. Of course, if the creator is in active dialogue with the team, exceptions can be made - but I believe we should be pretty aggressive with this and use a 2-week system. Week 1: Receive Warning of low stats + Staff Outreach/Discussion, Week 2: Review Activity + disable rewards if no improvement. the Creator is not in active dialogue with someone from the team with explanation)
  • Distribution - This is super awesome! The proposal should unlock the ability for dev to tune this lever though - like between 100% backing liquidity, and 100% pro rata direct individual acct. distribution, to allow to potentially switch to 50% backing, 50% individual. I think its important to keep the rewards that the community earns together in one Creator’s coin, related to that Creator’s growth and the group’s growth in some way. Distribution options for dev in the proposition could include the ability to pro-rata the current backing system! Maybe insane to code, but I think if the Rewards came as a ‘buy’ of the Creator’s coin (like it does now) but then that Reward purchase is split pro-rata in the creator’s coin to all holders. Not sure how this would mess with flow controls.
  • Rewards Allocation Timing - Rad. Having Rewards split up between ~168 (dev should be able to change timing - 24/12/6/4/2/1 intervals per day) occasionally jittered and varied intervals weekly sounds great.
  • Sell Benefits - The idea of exit tax being pro-rata is also damn cool. I think whatever this is needs to have a scaling time window that is balanced with flow control to avoid it being ‘optimal’ for someone to perform 100 converts out at 100 to sneak lower taxes (if you’re still thinking of the scaling based on pool concept).
  • Rewards HODLing Incentives - If rewards are calculated once a week, and changed to be distributed across ~168 to 7 intervals, I would like us to only give rewards if you were there if you’ve been there for >55% of the rewards period. IE: if we calc on Sat, people that join after Weds AM should only be eligible for a reduced split of the rewards.

From a Business Development/Talent Acquisition standpoint, this will make convos with creators much easier, and so I am very excited to see your prop!

Super exciting times ahead for creators and the community on Rally.

1 Like

Hi. I am in Day 2 of being part of the Rally community after being forwarded an email related to the David Berkowitz drop.

I am a guy who has a decently sized network and am looking ways to help my friends out and potentially monetize the community building work we are already doing.

I read the post on how to earn community rewards on the main site and in the thread above and am not sure what activity I can do to earn rewards and help others earn rewards.

Here is what I have done so far:

  1. Bought all of the coins of the creators who are on Twitter and tweeted the purchases.

  2. Put in an application for my own coin.

  3. Invited a couple of friends to put in applications.

  4. Reached out to some people who have put in applications to inspire me.

Can somebody explain simply what individuals can do to earn rewards and also give any tips of ways to drive value.

Have an amazing day!!

Heya Justin!

Welcome to the community.

Our Discord server is the best place for you to ask questions like this - you can join here:

These forums are generally for deeper discussion that can’t carry well via the rapid chat that happens on Discord.

To answer your question - currently, individuals gain value from rewards when they’re holding a coin that is receiving them. In the future (as described above) those rewards that go into creator’s coins will be distributed in some fashion directly to those that hold a coin.

For deeper information, check out the Rewards FAQ (again, earlier in the thread):

And if that doesn’t do it for ya, check out the wiki:

Specifically, this page:

Thanks for your future help in keeping these forums on-topic, and directing one-off questions to the appropriate Discord channel.

Thanks for the response. Will move follow up questions to Discord.