Bounty: The Genesis Incentive Pool
Hey Polkadot Community,
Talisman is requesting that a bounty be funded to support ongoing development and marketing activities. In this proposal we make the case that Talisman to date has generated value greatly in excess of our costs (over an 8x return) and is seeking additional funding.
In order to ensure we are incentivised to create effective products that users really want to use we are asking for the majority of the funding to be on commission basis for tangible results our product generates. Instead of the treasury providing a subsidy for each individual roadmap item which we feel is a poor incentive that generates very limited value for the network. We believe a results based funding model is appropriate for Talisman as it creates a positive feedback loop that will compound the value we create for the Polkadot network over time.
It is a large bounty, yes! But less than 15% is guaranteed as payment, the rest is a potential commission that way may or may not receive during the 7 month duration of this bounty.
This bounty implements an idea called Incentive Pools:
Incentive Pools are a novel concept that I believe can enable the treasury to implement results-based funding and generate better outcomes for DOT holders than our existing approach. The Genesis Incentive Pool will provide a commission for acquiring new stakers, generate more demand for the DOT token than it costs, and accelerate Talisman's transition towards sustainability.
To wrap your head around this referenda I recommend you start here 👇
🎥 Video Explainer: What are Incentive Pools? — 13 mins
🎥 Video Explainer: The Genesis Incentive Pool — 15 mins + questions
📜 Proposal: A bounty for the Genesis Incentive Pool
Thanks for your attention!
Comments (15)
Proposal Failed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (69)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (103)0.0 DOT
it's so big spend and under big risk. NAYS!
@1ZkV4eXDvYL6HWubc3YPxCTU1B2GzbSLadU1owRGdL4MFEB
Hi please take a look at the proposal in detail.
The incentive pool only guarantees a fraction of the total amount as funding, the over 80% of the bounty would be provided on a commission basis for generating results which are valuable in excess of the costs.
Imagine a business person told you it was possible to invest $1 in in their company and receive $1.50 back in 6 months. What matters more is the risk and expected return rather than how expensive it is.
Strong NO, because:
- This proposal are steps to privatize Polkadot network according interest of one entity (Talisman) , don't like it. Its not a good idea at all.
@PromoTeam Validator
Hey PolkadotPromoTeam,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate the enthusiasm as I am also really passionate about Polkadot and want to see our ecosystem be successful. Having reviewed your comment I believe you’ve misunderstood and unknowingly misrepresented a few elements of the proposal which I’d like to clarify:
Regarding the costs of this proposal:
This proposal doesn’t cover 100% of Talismans expenses despite your comment that it does. This was actually intentional, as it ensures that we have to perform valuable work that will generate commission in order to survive financially.
This proposal intends to establish a framework in which the treasury’s risk is managed. For example: If Talisman does not generate a positive ROI we only receive a fraction of the available bounty funding.
Incentive Pools are intended to generate value in excess of its costs if successful, and if you measure ROI from treasury funding of Talisman to date in terms of DOT demand, we have generated more than a 7x return on funds invested to date.
If you disagree with my analysis of the value we generate then that is a conversation I would really love to have as the community does not have an established framework for thinking about the ROI of treasury proposals afaik. However, you have not mentioned this.
You’ve suggested it costs us thousands of dollars to acquire users, I think this was just hyperbole and probably not a serious comment but if that was your sincere impression please let me know as that means I need to improve the clarity of the proposal.
Regarding ways Talisman could generate revenue:
You’ve suggested running a validator or implementing paid features. These are great ideas and something we intend to do eventually but your suggestion is not based on insight.
Unfortunately running a couple of validators and adding paid features would not sustain Talisman at this time. It would at best cover about 25% of costs. One reason for this is that the amount of real active users in Polkadot whose assets under management are even in-excess of a yearly subscription fee is quite small. I suspect other wallets would have a similar problem if you use their Nomination Pools AUM as a proxy for the total assets stored in their products.
This might not be obvious but it’s quite expensive to build and operate a high quality wallet company. It’s not just about writing code and having a few devs. We invest extensively in internal processes that allow us to keep making progress whilst ensuring our code is safe for users such as employing including QA personnel, undergoing frequent audits, etc.
The reality is that wallets will need to be subsidised by the Polkadot treasury for the forseeable future. What I am attempting to lay out is a method in those who generate the most results will be able to compound those results and eventually become sustainable. As opposed to being an increasing cost-centre.
Regarding equality:
You’ve emphasised the importance of diversity and I agree, but the benefit of diversity in my mind is that different strategies are tested in the market and improves the probability something will be successful and generate a return on investment for the community. The treasury has millions in the creation of wallet products to date and the idea that we would indefinitely want to maintain fairness or equality of outcomes rather than supporting the ones that do win in the market doesn’t make sense to me.
I would prefer a free-market approach wherein winners can emerge from competition and as a community we become wealthier in terms of the tools and services that are available rather than one in which groups delineated and prescribed predetermined outcomes for fairness.
I put the question back to you: If there were two comparable companies and one generated an order of magnitude better outcomes than the other would you see any benefit to accelerating the one generating the positive outcome?