This seems like a strong way to get people busy! Just been running it through my head and have a couple of noob questions:
1 - Would Options buyers need to buy with Index? What are the gas costs of the contracts to buy in and redeem - this would determine a floor on it being individually worthwhile.
2 - If we meet the KPI, and the options are collected, is the Coop NET in profit, is that important? That is to ask, how much cost are we willing to tolerate in order to reach our KPI, and what other methods might also achieve the result? 10,000 Index is currently about 1/2 a million $ and that would buy a lot of ads for example.
I realise there are other considerations such as developing connections and partnerships but those were the questions that stuck in my mind, even though I think the motivational aspect of the idea is .
I love the idea behind KPI Options and partnering with UMA on something like this does sound awesome. However, I am trying to determine if we actually need to do something like this? It is not clear to me how doing KPI options is going to actually spur activity from contributors that wouldnât otherwise occur? And we havenât been having issues reaching stretch goals/KPIs to date without such incentives?
I am happy to be convinced, but just because we can do something doesnât mean we should, and I am not convinced that we need to do something like this right now. The proposal and comments are very geared towards how the campaign would work and how it would be marketed, but it doesnât include much evidence or strategy on why this is a gap at the Coop that needs to be filled?
@Don-ETH You would purchase the option for 0.1 INDEX
@mrvls_brkfst Thanks for the feedback, yes the option buyer would need to buy with INDEX. Gas costs are a factor we increased the reward to 3 INDEX to make it more worth while.
Very good point you make here. I do not think we should be looking at the reward as a cost but rather a way to increase distribution of INDEX to the community which is one of the goals of the treasury and align the community to achieving our KPIâs. If we had to buy ads for $500k we would have to sell/dump INDEX for USDC/ETH which would create downward pressure on the price. If we distribute INDEX in this way, people who are purchasing the option are more likely to hold the token as it is only available to INDEX token holders who are already holding INDEX before a certain date because they believe in the project long term.
Thank you for your feedback JD. It is difficult to find a direct correlation between these options and achieving core KPIâs the only evidence that exists is what themselves UMA are piloting for their own protocol (https://claim.umaproject.org/) where they offer the KPI options to grow TVL but also have links to various UMA projects that increase UMA TVL and make the options more valuable. We can replicate this campaign and link our products or initiatives that grow our products unit supply that people can get involved in. Besides that it can also help increase INDEX distribution which I believe is a goal treasury is actively trying to pursue. It is an idea/experiment and whether it is good or not is dependant on whether we try the campaign. The question of whether it is worth it go through with the campaign is subjective and ultimately up to the community to decide.
Hey @overanalyser Thanks for your feedback! We do not know unless we try. The only pilot available for us to get an insight as to whether it works or not is the UMA experiment (https://claim.umaproject.org/).
From a Dev stand point UMA are willing to do majority of the heavy lifting. We just need to get the KPI identifier and propose it through a UIP on the UMA forum and generate a list of addresses that are eligible for option based on the Qualification Criteria. Gas costs are incurred by the Option Purchaser.
I can definitely appreciate this @Mringz . Also just want to shout out that I applaud your experimentation-focused mindset & proposals.
I guess I still lack understanding around the part of this experiment that spurs more/better/new contributions that will actually get us to a given KPI. Like, if we had a hypothesis that contributors werenât incentivized enough to try and achieve stretch KPIs then by all means letâs experiment with how to increase incentivation. However, I see the complete opposite right now - contributors are extremely incentivized and motivated right now to build the Coopâs KPIs without KPI options. I just donât feel like that is an area of problem or need right now, so it does not warrant an experiment to try and fix. Does that make sense?
Most startups have bonuses for growth targets, do they all have a motivation problem? I think they have as much energy as we do, but in order to achieve the âimpossibleâ you also need incredible motivation.
I understand this solution doesnât solve an actual problem we have in the coop right now. But considering the possible costs/benefits of this experiment, we got nothing to lose and everything to gain
I agree in this, people are very motivated. I still think that there is value in finding new methods of distributing INDEX to those that are involved enough that it may push them to stay or get involved further. Maybe this could help INDEX be spread wide enough so that the voting process is meaningfully decentralized in a few years. Iâd imagine that it takes some planning and the more INDEX holders that are educated and at some point have been engaged in the project, the more informed voters we will have.
@Mringz In addition to the UMA options, I was wondering if it was worthwhile to also look at Revest smart vaults. They seem to be more programmable and easier-to-use than UMA options.
.