On the merits of the idea itself, it feels kind of like a share buyback scheme. It doesn’t feel like it would take DAO funds and invest in the future of the protocol which is generally what I personally demand from all use of DAO funds, i.e. in such a way that the breadth and depth of what you can do and why you come to DCL increases user growth. Seems somewhat overlapping in intention with the In-World Content grant budget and would be more in favor of such an idea if the ideas were somehow consolidated (I foresee that category to grow more contentious over time given the most intangible delivery criteria).
On the other hand, execution of this idea would be exceedingly difficult. Lots of thought would need to be put into how data is transparently collected and measured if it’s directly affecting user’s cash flows. Bots are also inevitable, and are already exceedingly hard to distinguish in data sets. The analytics providers (including yours truly) might end up being the biggest beneficiaries if this were to move forward.
Still voting no tho. Would rather see this kind of KPI reporting applied to the In World Content grants instead. Not ready to be inundated with “come 2 my party plz!!1!” discord messages.
Nothing to confess, we never ever use any bots, and we even banned multi-realms farming. I was questioning the data part as well, and I was just curious about HP’s opinion.
Decentraland Games took years to build. I doubt such success will ever be repeated. Comparing this proposal to DG is dumb to start with whichever way you look at it.
Most of the projects asking for money here are scams/rugpulls. As we know Decentraland is the only place where we can see huge grants for games/venues/events with 3-5 DAU. Just keep in mind that some peeps just like the fake angel investor and doctor are using DAO money to pay their debts.
Also I’m doubful about the system, but I think is better to have it even if not perfect than having nothing. It can also be improved on next drafts and over time.
Hi, first of all, thank you to everyone for your comments and feedback!
The data team has reviewed the process and found a bug in the algorithm related to how metrics were counted in scenes with multiple lands. Thank you very much for checking this out and raising your concerns.
Below, you will find a revised version of the results. Once again, the analysis was performed on visitors connecting with a web3 wallet during June. Suspicious activity (such as bots) was removed from the analysis. Please share your thoughts on this.
I’m wondering what to do with scenes that are “duplicated” in the ranking, such as ICE Poker/Diamond Hands casinos and Ethermon House/Forest. Should they be compensated twice, or should their metrics be added together?
At present, we aren’t assigning more weight to any particular metric, including the Daily Active Users (DAU). This is because we believe other metrics mentioned are equally significant. Our goal isn’t just to increase the number of active users, but to cultivate more engaged ones as well! However, we’re open to the possibility of adjusting this approach in the future. This could involve prioritizing the DAU or any other metric that aligns with our strategic objectives.
Please be assured that all the data in use is publicly accessible through the Catalysts and subject to audit. Organizations like DCL Metrics and Atlas Corporation are involved in analytics, and it should be no discrepancy in terms of the raw data. Aligning definitions for Web3 users, Guests, and Bots ensures consistency in results. If discrepancies are detected, it is feasible to compare and reconcile the outcomes through a process known as triple auditing.
Indeed, that’s a valid point. Here’s a revised proposal for a more balanced payout distribution:
1st Position: 10% = $3,000
2nd Position: 9% = $2,700
3rd Position: 8% = $2,400
4th Position: 7% = $2,100
Positions 5 to 10: 6% each = $1,800 each
Positions 11 to 20: 3% each = $900 each
These calculations are based on a total prize pot of 30k USD.
That’s an insightful suggestion. The possibility of assessing user ‘quality’ through marketplace activities such as the ownership of wearables, names, land, or mana could indeed be considered as a part of the evaluation process.
Is there a specific need for this restriction? If DCL is attracting a sufficient number of users and the ranking criteria are effective, it might be more beneficial to reward the most engaging scenes. Implementing a minimum engagement threshold could be perceived as arbitrary.
The initial recommendation is to launch a pilot program, funded by a grant. Should it prove successful, it could then be proposed for governance consideration.
To subsidize the cycle, DAO resources could be utilized. The suggestion to peg the price to a percentage of the marketplace activity is intended to align incentives. The actual percentage, whether 30%, 100%, or 200%, is up to the DAO to determine and it can be adjusted as needed in the future.
Absolutely! The current system flags any user who connects more than 4 users within a day from the same IP Addresses and User Agent as suspicious. As Kyllian pointed out, this will always be a cat-and-mouse game that needs continuous refinement. Despite the challenges, the goal remains a worthwhile pursuit.
Session lengths in a scene are currently capped to a maximum limit to prevent AFK behavior from skewing the metrics. The data reported by the Catalyst does not incorporate chat activity or movement within the scene. While it is possible to collect this information by connecting to all peer-to-peer networks and listening for events, it would significantly complicate the process and make auditing more challenging.
I think it is good starting simple, but maybe just a counter on chat activity isn’t too complex, grouping by user (hashed to keep some privacy) or not. Anyway, the idea is there, it’s going to be really hard being open source and apply rewards, but better something than nothing and start simple.
Maybe some “hidden”, not so public measures can also be implemented to apply bans, or a thurstable private third party service providing score.
Thanks for the reply! Tons of good stuff in there and so many concerns addressed!!
The purpose of this is mainly to add threshold at which point the content can be deemed ‘successful’. It’s not really a big deal now (the number of engaging scenes we have is fairly manageable), but if we get to the point where content abounds and the community can support a large number of scenes it may be easier use certain thresholds to determine what the lowest viable candidate for funding is (rather than just the top 20). It also makes it easier to adjust this minimal threshold for content as the platform gets more popular to ensure the quality of content is upheld & provides a filter against less popular / less engaging / low effort experiences.
It feels like the best approach would be to bundle all the metrics for a given experience together as a single entity, measuring the interaction levels with an experience not the location. All the funding a specific experience generates (across every estate/world) is likely going towards the development & maintenance of that experience as a whole. This also helps tackle issues that may rise when an estate is re-branded; we set the time range to only include metrics for a project when estates are displaying content for that brand.
Ex: If a part of the Ethermon experience migrated to a new location it would still be part of Ethermon and should be included in the metrics; if the estate that experience moved from hosts a new type of content not relating to the Ethermon, the metrics for that estate should that are to be bundled with Ethermon up to the point where the content changed (metrics past that point are then attributed to the new content experience).
I did a little research between DCL metrics and atlas … there both very different numbers when I tried to get analytics for my scene. Something to look into.
Also will worlds be included ?
I agree on incentives to creators…
Of course we need to have the right data to avoid issues in the future.
But this is where we need to be heading if we want an active platform.
I’m really late to the party on this one apparently but I just want to say that from the perspective of someone who has built an analytics platform, I must say I’m skeptical that this can be done in a way that can’t be gamed if there is a financial incentive to do so.
Some questions come into play like - how many unique account addresses can be included in the metrics if they are coming from the same IP address? Will people using VPN or proxy connections be left out of the count, since that could be a way to circumvent the IP restriction?
Would engagement be based on number of visitors? Time spent in scene? Time spent active? There are so many variables, and I agree with Nikki Fuego and others who have expressed the importance of getting these metrics right if there will be a financial incentive to influence them.
I feel like for $7500 a month, plenty of people around the world would have plenty of incentive to build an AI bot army that “engages” with their scene 24/7. A world full of fake engagement will do more harm than good.
