Data Economy Index (DATA): Forward to DG2!

@verto0912 @BigSky7 @puniaviision @overanalyser @oneski22 @jdcook @Tradespot @Kiba

I addressed this in yesterday’s Product Working Group meeting, but want to leave a comment here for the community and other observers.

In yesterday’s meeting, I acknowledged that in some of my comments on this forum post that I had failed to “interact with empathy” so I am holding myself accountable for this and committing to interact with all of you to the standard of the Index Coop’s Guiding Principles. I hope you will accept my apology and that we can all continue to work together.

I am also in agreement with @BigSky7’s comment that Kiba’s disparaging comments in this thread, and others on Discord/Twitter, were and are completely unacceptable, but I cannot speak on Kiba’s behalf and you would not accept it if I did.

Because of these issues, @Kiba and I discussed his relationship with the Index Cooperative and agreed that I will be the key point of contact for the DATA launch moving forward.

I also want to reiterate that I am in 100% agreement with @BigSky7’s comment below and share some additional personal context.

I walked away from my secure, high-paying job as a Data Science Manager (with a lot of upward mobility) to take a risk on Index Cooperative and Set Protocol because of how much I believe in making financial products accessible to all.

To that end, I started a company, Token Terrier, and have worked with the Index Cooperative to launch the Data Economy Index via a DAO, Titans of Data, for very little pay in the short-term.

My goal is to find a way to sustainably work with this community by building financial/data products.

I hope all of you can see that this is primarily about purpose and passion for me, and that the money is secondary but ultimately required for doing what I love to do sustainably.


I received a lot of pushback on the timelines shared in this post:

We had a productive, helpful conversation about Product Launch Philsophy in yesterday’s PWG meeting and have shared the notes here for those who are interested:

Minimum Viable Product Launches


Congratulations on passing DG1 :partying_face:. That is a big step forward. When I think of DG2 - I see it as an opportunity for our community to do a true deep dive into a few of the most relevant issues prior to final confirmation.

Prior to voting to move this index forward, we need to have serious community-wide transparency and discussion around a number of significant questions with DATA. This community due diligence is meant to avoid a repeat of the CoinShare Crypto Gold Index. We are simply at too strong of a position as a protocol to have a major product flop.

Question #1

Methodologists as Distribution Platforms

DeFi Pulse currently gets over 1 million views a month of their website, Index Coop on the other hand receives 25k. When we say methodologies are distribution platforms that is what we mean. Having a large and active distribution platform is vital for the success of our indexes ( note in the absence of such a platform we need to create it internally which requires MASSIVE amounts of work- see how much effort Paul and AG have spent on Metaverse to make it a success).

In my eyes the primary reason for Index Coop’s success over the past 9-months is the strength of the methodologists we have partnered with. None of our competitors have been able to partner with strong outside methodologists and this is reflected in the lack of traction of these products.

Indexes do not need to be massively differentiated, however, the market segment covered by each distribution platform should be meaningfully differentiated.

  • We give external methodologists a very attractive deal 70/30 and part of the methodologist bounty program to attract methodologists with blue-chip data distribution platforms like DeFi Pulse. (note: this is bigger than just website views, it comes down to trust, reputation, brand name, and ability to build quality methodologies)
  • If the methodologists do not have a strong platform to distribute the Index then the majority of the support will fall on Index Coop. Organically creating a distribution platform is incredibly hard. Metaverse is a great example of this - Paul and AG have worked extremely hard to support MVI over the past four months and have seen great success even when limited to $256k total on liquidity mining.

Bottom Line: Does the DATA team have a strong enough distribution platform to justify a 70/30 fee split? It seems clear that making this index will require a VAST amount of resources from the Coop. I would like to see more than just support from crypto influencers.

Question #2

Where is liquidity coming from?

In the original proposal, you mention some liquidity tentatively being supplied by Filecoin and then potentially some support being received from Chainlink. While these communities will obviously be enthusiastic to their token being included in DATA - I don’t think any have enough skin in the game to provide the level of liquidity support needed for a successful product launch. I also do not think we have a firm written commitment from any of them that they will provide liquidity.

I don’t not want us to get in a situation three months from now where DATA has little traction and little liquidity and no strong distribution platform. Leading to our community being in a position where we have to provide LM to support DATA.

There are numerous large-scale LPs out there who are desperate for quality pairs to LP. They are sick of providing liquidity for high emission farms where the underlying tokens have no real value. These LPs would love to provide long-term liquidity for a quality product like DATA.

Bottom Line: What is DATA’s long-term plan to ensure liquidity for this product? We need commitments around who will provide liquidity and how much they will provide. We are running a major blue-chip DeFI protocol - it should not be difficult to run down a few million in liquidity support.

Question #3

Methodologist conduct

This product has moved extremely quickly through the Index Coop pipeline. At the same time both methodologists have been very vocal in other highly contentious topics in the Coop. While many of these conversations are necessary, the style and tone from the methodologists have introduced large amounts of friction to our community.

This creates an impression that DATA is being rushed through. It also may create significant frustration from community members (specifically our Product Team who were very aggressively insulted - without any apologies forthcoming) - who may ultimately shoulder a large amount of the work needed to support DATA.

If Index Coop is to survive as a long-term project we cannot have highly contentious or aggressive lobbying campaigns that obfuscate the true support a product has and rush the community through the process. Do you believe that the DATA team has conducted itself with a level of professionalism commiserate with our core values?

I fully understand that it takes an aggressive mentality to make things happen in the Coop. I value that about both of you and we will need that same aggressive mentality if this product is going to be a long-term success. With that said we need to seriously discuss some of these issues or they will continually resurface. We cannot completely re-orient everyone’s focus every time we want to release a new methodology.

Numerous community members have reached out to me to express frustration with how the DATA discussions have evolved and how aggressive these conversations feel. We need to step our game up.

DATA will launch and it will be successful. The above questions above are not meant to denigrate the extreme amounts of hard work put into this product up to this point. They are also not meant to erase your very valid frustrations with various aspects of the Coop


@BigSky7 @Pepperoni_Joe

Could we schedule a community call for DATA on Tuesday, August 3rd (8/3) at 2:00 PM PST (9:00 PM UTC)? Would be great to address each of the items that @BigSky7 has brought up above and have a Q&A session with the community about DATA.

@Kiba is in South Korea now so unfortunately there is not going to be a better time to meet across time zones.

1 Like

I think we should proceed with the August 3rd community call, but drop the notion of a “negotiation” occurring on a community call. Anything agreed upon can and should be aired publicly, but this is complex and as you pointed out, you have incentive for urgency that the Coop does not. Anything agreed upon on behalf of the Coop should be carefully considered and no team should be able to commit the Coop to terms on a live call.

Is the proposal to split these 70/30 Coop/Titans? I think that’s implied but couldn’t find that quickly. Could just be my miss.

I want to expand something you laid out in our 1-1 conversation that I found compelling. With this point, you’re saying that the existing methodologist bounty program combined with the current state of DFP-as-methodologist products produces a non-linear relationship between new product AUM and bounty compensation. Hence, the relationship with DFP is not “positive-sum.” I think that’s a fair criticism that our external methodologist incentive has been somewhat dulled and the bounty doesn’t reflect its original intent. So I think you could quibble with the levels for the DATA team’s proposal, but I agree with that principled argument against the existing bounty program as it’s realized today.

Curious about @verto0912’s thoughts on this and the others he name-checked with prior methodologist comp negotiation experience (@Matthew_Graham , @MrMadila , and @puniaviision).

1 Like

Thank you for your thoughtful response - It is much appreciated :pray:

100% agree with you. I will adjust the governance forum post and slides accordingly. If possible, @Kiba and I would prefer to spend more time focusing on general Q&A with the community on the call and this would help us in that regard.

That was our original thinking when we posted IIP-55: Data Economy Index - it was in our initial draft compensation proposal. I later examined the Methodologist Fee Menu which actually implied the fee split should be 50-50 or 60-40 (Titans of Data <> Index Cooperative) because of the high likelihood that no liquidity mining incentives will be provided by the Index Coop. Regardless, this is an open point of negotiation that we think should be considered alongside the Methodologist Bounty Program.

It is worth noting that that document was created with an assumption of a standard 95 bps streaming fee like DPI. We’ve conducted research which suggests that a lower streaming fee (50 bps) with a 10 bps mint fee and a 20 bps redeem fee will generate more revenue without sacrificing TVL. See our revenue model.

An Additional Note:

My apologies if we’ve made the negotiation and launch process feel adversarial. This is sincerely not our intention. We’re extremely excited about DATA and eager to go to DG2, launch the product, and continually improve over time.

I am genuinely sorry if our proposed timeline(s) have come across as inconsiderate or demanding on the Coop’s people and resources.

I understand the Coop has many other priorities, but I would feel a lot more at ease if we knew who we should be interacting with and what timeframe we can expect. Given the opportunity cost to Titans of Data, would it be possible for someone to respond with (1) who we should be negotiating with, and (2) what the timeline is? Thank you for your consideration :smiley:

I’m giving you my time because I think the Coop owes DATA a way forward. But I want to be clear about something. You have that path forward and a timeline for the existing external methodologist compensation structure. You are also asking, in a principled and reasonable way, that we revisit that structure.

Revisiting a founding, structural aspect of the Coop requires community buy-in. And that means you should be dealing with a cross-functional team. @BigSky7 and @verto0912 come to mind and have stepped forward to provide feedback (including different views on who should negotiate). But I actually feel much better as a Coop member knowing both are weighing in and thinking about it. For my own part, I think the BD team should run point, but we should be sure to include those with prior context and/or ensure they’ve uploaded that context to the BD team to their satisfaction. And to be clear, “run point” does not mean “have the authority to bind the Coop.”


That makes sense. Thank you for your time and energy on this and getting a cross-functional group together.

Completely understand changing the foundation requires community buy-in. I would not feel comfortable including an alternative structure in a DG2 vote for DATA if it did not have broad consensus.

1 Like