@willy and @twells, we really appreciate your kind words - and we feel the same about your team. We are so impressed with ShapeShift, and our team has been honored to work with yours in support of an incredible OP rewards program.
Also, congrats on the amazing Season 1 results: https://twitter.com/thrivecoinhq/status/1677703891721527299!
Excited to announce that earlier today (July 17th) we took season one live with 11 ways to contribute. But that’s not all as we will be adding many more ways to contribute as the season progresses!!
Mission Go Live: July 17th
Milestone Update: As of July 24th
One week into our mission proposal being live we have made some good progress:
| Milestone Name | Milestone Target | Actual | Completion Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| research artifacts | 50 | 40 | 80.00% |
| contributors | 75 | 45 | 60.00% |
| pieces of content | 250 | 56 | 22.40% |
appreciate the early update! is there a way we can see the kinds of content that have been made and the rewards etc contributors have gotten for making them?
Love that question as it gets at quality… like are these just vanity metrics or are they actually producing high quality content as well?
Let me explain our quality control system a bit first. I have hand selected a group of the best content creators in the program and dubbed them “super-ambassadors”. Now these super ambassadors are responsible for reviewing each piece of content and research artifact for accuracy, quality and a few other criteria. They they approve or reject the submission based on that criteria.
Now is this a perfect system? Absolutely not… but we are learning and making adjustments as we go to this quality control process.
Soon we will have a repository of research artifacts that will be publicly available. Then after the season ends we will figure out the best way to represent the quality of the content via data and share some examples.
Mission Go Live: July 17th
Milestone Update: August 7th (3 weeks completed)
| Milestone Name | Milestone Target | Actual | Completion Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| research artifacts | 50 | 222 | 444 % |
| contributors | 75 | 216 | 288 % |
| pieces of content | 250 | 453 | 181% |
Approval Rate = 40%
NOTES:
The metrics above only include contributions which have been deemed high enough quality to be counted as contributions (approved)
When factoring in all of the submissions, this mission proposal has generated 2,100+ pieces of content
Content Contest Time!
Since we have hit our milestones we will be using the remaining OP to run a content contest featuring the best of the best Ambassador generated content from this mission proposal.
Ambassadors who have an approved piece of content will now get a chance to enhance their content by interviewing their selected retroPGF recipient then create a long format Mirror article + Twitter thread which incorporates this interview.
The best content (selected by the alliance) will then be included in a mega-thread which the community will vote on by retweeting their favorites.
See here for contest details
I will be providing another update once the content mega-thread is out and community voting begins
@Jrocki Thanks for the experience really appreciate , many of us wannabee / ambassador roles are enthusiastic about the thrivecoin program, retropgf3 will soon begin, let’s anticipate it.
Hi @Jrocki!
As Season 4 draws to a close this week, we’re so excited to see how you’ve executed on your Mission! Please post an update for the community here outlining the milestones you’ve met this Thursday (9/20) by 19:00 GMT. Please include links to any final work products as we’ll create a final roundup linking to all Mission deliverables.
We also encourage you to sign-up for RetroPGF Round 3. You’ll be able to describe the impact of your Mission when you sign-up: RetroPGF Round 3 Applications Are Open
Thanks again for being part of this experiment and helping us build the Collective 
Mission Go Live: July 17th
| Milestone Name | Milestone Target | Actual | Completion Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| research artifacts | 50 | 638 | 1,276 % |
| contributors | 75 | 309 | 412 % |
| pieces of content | 250 | 1073 | 429% |
Approval Rate = 34%
Total Views (Approved Content): 1.6m+
NOTES:
UPDATE: retroPGF CONTENT CONTEST:
After hitting our proposal milestones midway through season 4 we decided to use the remaining OP for a retroPGF content contest.
In this content contest we gave Ambassadors a chance to enhance their previous work by going out and interviewing their retroPGF recipient then creating a Twitter thread and corresponding Mirror article summarizing the interview.
This content contest generated an additional 170k views.
Thanks for the update @Jrocki! Please not that all Missions will be able to showcase their work tomorrow during a dedicated Mission demo day on September 28th, at 16:00 GMT on the Discord mainstage!
see you at the top
hi dear fantastic project
hi dear this a perfect project
This needs a more detailed review.
Let’s look at the content contest, by the way, where the OP was handed out as determined by RTs.
Was this suspended account the top recipient?
The second-place one by @ayohtunde meanwhile, saw its RTs heavily botted:
As was the original post:
The entry right below it, interestingly, was botted by the same botnet that liked the original post by @ayohtunde
What were actual outcomes of this program? What sorts of metrics can we trust here?
Hi Jack, this is some really weird and funny accusation at the same time.
Firstly, here’s the final result of the contest. I was not second, my position was fourth but ended up being third place because of a contestant’s banned account.
Secondly, Looking at the entries now again, seems like every contestant had their posts botted one way or the other… I’m sure you’re aware of how bots are all over X. Even the Thank Optimism Post on the contest has bots in it (looking at it rn).
I’m surprised it’s my entry and I’m the only person being accused of having botted. I don’t even know where they (bot) came from.
I’m sure @Jrocki will answer every other question you have about the mission.
I’m not accusing anyone of anything, just observing some interesting activity and asking for a more detailed understanding of these campaigns.
Hey Jack, sorry for the delayed response I was out for a few days. Of course I can provide a more detailed summary. I will write that up and post.
@jackanorak There were two pieces to the execution of this mission proposal:
retroPGF content bounties - We posted content contributions, had creators submit their content, and had Super-Ambassadors review each individual piece of content to ensure it met the requirements before rewarding their work. Below is the summary of the results as matched against our milestones:
[FINAL] Thank Optimism - powered by ThriveCoin - #70 by jrocki.bedrock
Content Contest - After hitting our content milestones we took our learnings and used the rest of the OP to do something that would up the quality of the content being created and get more eyeballs on that higher quality content.
From the content bounty program, we learned that creators who collaborated directly with projects to co-create content actually created higher quality content which the project then helped co-promote with the creators.
Using this information we outlined the requirements of the content contest to facilitate this relationship: "Ambassadors who had an approved piece of content submitted in the earlier bounty program will now get a chance to enhance their content by interviewing their selected retroPGF recipient then creating a long format Mirror article + Twitter thread which incorporates this interview.
Once the content was submitted, we incentivized the community with a small amount of OP to vote by retweeting their favorite entires. The contest winners were then determined based on the number of retweets they received.
In the end we generated alot of content and views. However, it is hard to tell how many of these views came from actual humans, I would agree with you. For next time, I would like to focus on fewer projects (this was for all previous retropgf recipients) so we can co-collaborate on higher quality content together. Narrowing our focus would also allow us to setup more reliable success metrics like a Net Promoter Score (NPS) to gauge the satisfaction of projects we create content for.
| Milestone Name | Milestone Target | Actual | Completion Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| research artifacts | 50 | 638 | 1,276 % |
| contributors | 75 | 309 | 412 % |
| pieces of content | 250 | 1073 | 429% |
Approval Rate = 34%
Total Views (Approved Content): 1.6m+
*The Content Contest generated an additional 170k+ views.
I’m not accusing anyone of anything, just observing some interesting activity and asking for a more detailed understanding of these campaigns.
