This is a well thought out and innovative strategy to drive growth on Optimism. It is a unique application of DeFi on-chain incentives but in this case applied to an Optimism native NFT project which is in my opinion much stickier than DeFi as these projects are community oriented in nature and so I would expect to see higher user retention rates. I would also be interested in the possibility of calculating a new user acquisition cost as I see that being quite low as well.
The only concern I have is that certain users will try to game the system and collect a majority of the rewards. Maybe there is a way to tie the maximum amount of rewards to the number of Opti-Chads owned per wallet to facilitate a more even distribution? No need to come up with a solution just food for thought.
I am happy to support this proposal, as personally it sores quite high for me on the grading criteria we have laid out as the NFT and Gaming Governance Committee:
The ROI potential of funding each proposal (we want to use our $OP as efficiently as possible. The winner of the L2 wars will be decided ultimately by how efficiently the network can allocate capital)
Is the proposal prescriptive enough to prevent mis-use of $OP token funding and does it drive sustainable ecosystem growth?
Amount of OP requested (with ROI taken into account)
Whether or not the project has launched on Optimism (and if OP native)
Hi @Dicaso , I was reading thread and would like to hear your opinion on two suggestion.
Please dont forget to summarize the feedback and changes your have got so far.
I see that this giveaway is native NFT gated. What do you think about letting users without NFT participate in this campaign too, rank them on the basis of their activity and reward top 50 or 100 by giving a Optichad NFT. You can also consider this as a co-incentives.
Here is an example:-
I assume these task are health related activities, so,
NFT holder :- they just need to complete that specific task
Other users:- their ranking will increase proportional to number of time they are doing that specific task in that defined period.
This of course will increase your manual work but impact could be significantly higher.
@OPUser We can giveaway 50 NFTs to the top addresses with the most Rewards Points (RP) based on quest completion at the end of the campaign. We would ideally start with simple and attainable challenges like “10 pushups with good form” and the platform would reward the same amount of RP based soley on completion.
I do think it would be technically difficult to do anything without NFT gating. The way RP is calculated they would have to finish the quests (thus earning $OP) before being counted. Requiring ‘stake’ in the ecosystem by holding an NFT would reduce sybil by magnitudes.
We have added 50 NFTs as co-incentives - suggested by @OPUser. We will now use 100% of requested $OP as rewards for NFT holders who complete the quests, instead of 90%. Portions of texts were removed and edited to reflect this. - suggested by @mteoptimism and @Butterbum.
Summary: Feedback has been mostly positive with most questions about how we would address sybil, and how Quest3 works. I mentioned that we can apply filters such as NFT gating, as well as off-chain verification like a Twitter/Discord follow .The team will manually review all submissions. We will now reward 50 NFTs as coincentives to the most active users.The proposal was changed from [DRAFT] to [REVIEW] a few days ago.
I’m definitely willing to review submissions carefully, as I will be engaging in the activities as well, to help lead by example. This proposal will help bring new users in. I was talking about it today at work and I cannot tell you how excited my coworkers were. None of them own NFT’s or have crypto wallets. But when I explained that I was part of a proposal that could fund other people around the world to work out, their eyes widened. They asked all kinds of questions. They wanted to be involved. This is exactly the type of thing we should want to put out there and use as a success story.
Before September 22, 2022 3:00 PM ET to be included in snapshot voting you will need to add links to your delegate approvals here:
Provided your proposal has received explicit approval comments from two delegates with >0.5% voting power, as outlined in the Operating Manual , please use the below format to list your proposal in a reply to this post.
Aligned with committee decision. As said in committee proposal, I am more comfortable with Identity and P2E rather than judging a pure pfp nft project but this grant is going totally towards building community, distribution is done really well with less scope of farming.
Huge respect for @Dicaso for his engagement on this proposal on this forum as well as on discord. He took feedback from almost everyone and has incorporated in this proposal. Willingness to do manual validation, allowing non-nft holder to join the campaign and giving 50 native nft as reward, all this gives me confidence that we are funding the right project and I believe this proposal is setting high standard for upcoming nft and related project.
I can’t explain why but I feel like they won’t keep their promises on the Proposal for token distribution. I can’t blame them, just saying that I couldn’t convince myself to trust them. On the other hand, I like the proposal, made some quick research and it sounds logical that 1.8k holders and 50k OP has been requested.
We shouldn’t decide on our feeling here.should keep a reasonable ratio between risk/return to the ecosystem.
Am voting for this proposal. I’m increasingly skeptical of the efficacy of quests, especially in today’s environment, but this seems like a good opportunity to run an experiment, and it’s in the hands of someone who’s open-minded and transparent in how they’re running things.
Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has a different path to DeFi protocols.