So, I just wanted to throw my thoughts into the mix about the subject of SourceCred.
Side-Note: @ygg_anderson…You sent me down the UN path…and I am extremely glad you did…I am really impressed with the approach the UN has taken with their SDG’s and specifically with the Public Administration Network structures. I cant believe I haven’t looked at the UN structure more closely. (I am attempting to write on the similarities/differences between The Public Administration Network and the Token Engineering Commons as two distinct approaches toward the creation of an Intellectual Commons)
Anyway, back to the subject of the Contribution Reward.
In my opinion, the purpose of the Contribution Reward is to reward members for the execution of functions within the TEC.
The use of SourceCred as an objective method for quantifying every individual contribution, big or small, is an extremely difficult task and one that has significant limitations as described by others above. I also think that attempting to build a perfect SourceCred system from the get-go is not important. It should be utilized in a way that works within our current setup, and achieves the functions it is designed to accomplish.
While every one of us who has commented on this post has provided value to the overall discourse of how we implement SourceCred, such recognition makes very little difference to the motivations of why we are here. Maybe one day in the future we will develop a system to quantify how much Cred is deserved between my post, and @ygganderson’s post, and between our collective posts and Santi actually developing it.
I had to ask myself, what is the difference between Cred and Praise, really?
And perhaps there are no differences. Except a language one.
Praise: There is a cultural value to the use of praise. It’s become an unusual and effective method for the cultural build of the TEC. I propose we maintain the use of of the term Praise even if we get rid of our current system of praise. (Cred=Praise)
Honestly I really like how cavalier we are with our use of praise. Praise Everything!!! I think this scales as well. Naturally, larger contributions and more quality contributions will on average receive more praise, while small contributions and broad ideas will receive less.
The act of praise should be universal and encouraged, and not restricted by excessive rules. The ability to game the system becomes rather difficult if we can create a system around it that incentivizes the creation of intrinsic motivations (around access rights) rather than extrinsic motivations (distribution of Grain) through the categorization of individuals holding Cred.
We can have a Community Grain Distribution, where only a small amount of the Grain Budget is committed for general distribution.
Praise (Cred) Classes.
Holders with 100 - 500 praises (Cred) each share 10% of General Grain distribution
Holders with 500-1000 praises each share 20% of General Grain distribution
Holders with 1000 - 3000 praises each share 30% of General Grain distribution
Holders with 3000-6000 praises each share 40% of General Grain distribution
When classes become impacted, they can be restructured. As an additional benefit, we can integrate these classes of Cred earnings as a method for other forms of intrinsic motivation to be created.
Perhaps granting individuals with praise in a certain range the title of Steward, or Fellow, or Lead, etc…and whose titles come with unique responsibilities, access, and roles within the administrative structure of the TEC. Stewards can lead WG’s; Fellows can lead subWGs; Leads can participate in WG’s or serve on a Committee or a Task Force for example. (However the administrative structure is differentiated, you can grant special forms of authority/access over the work being executed within the TEC – all through a system of praise. There is also very little incentive to game this system.
Operating in parallel we can have a separate instance of SourceCred that rewards the execution of the goals and functions of the TEC. Where each working group assigns Cred allocations for each type of task, and members can execute on them, receiving a proportional amount of Grain when distribution occurs. This requires significant focus around planning/budgeting processes.
The administrative costs for the system is in fact the problem. Keeping track of praise via spreadsheet is troublesome. Automating this system should be the priority. The only solution I see is one that will require the integration of an identity system (I really like BrightID), but perhaps 3box may be a more pragmatic solution at the present – and of course the implementation of SourceCred itself.
Integrating Identification, and tokenizing praise is a big task…but like the development of any CPR Setting, we must be willing to fund the required infrastructures necessary for these things to exist. Is Praise worth maintaining…is it worth the cost of such development…I know it is.
By maintaining a system of praise, we offer a method for intrinsic motivation to be created through the opportunities granted by earning praise. The “objectiveness” of a single unit of praise is irrelevant in the aggregate if we establish norms and traditions around its use, and maintain the current attitude towards distributing it.
Of course my thoughts on this system are obviously post-hatch.
Annnnnywhoooo, those are me thoughts.