This is a proposal to evolve GIVbacks by introducing a “raffle”-like system for distributing rewards. The biggest things that will change are:
GIVbacks, instead of going in small proportional amounts to each donor, will go to 5 “big winners” who are chosen randomly based on their donations (which act as proportional entries into a raffle).
GIVbacks will be distributed to winning addresses through a multisig tx (but addresses will still need to claim, and the GIV will still be part of the GIVstream).
Winners will be announced on biweekly Twitter spaces that will also be used to build donor community.
Preamble & Problem Statement
There is a growing need to evolve our GIVbacks program as the Giveth platform grows. Here is a breakdown of problems with our existing system:
Recirculation review is not scalable: Our current GIVbacks program requires a team to manually review transactions to check the source of funds, ensuring that only “first-touch” donations count for GIVbacks, and that funds are not recirculated. This review process is labour-intensive and incomplete, as smaller donations are often not thoroughly checked. As Giveth grows and we see more donations in the rounds, we increase the risk of sending GIV multiple times for the same dollars donated.
Our dependence on EVMcrispr & Aragon DAOs poses a sustainability risk: GIVbacks distribution is done through deprecated Aragon DAOs, through support of EVMcrispr. EVMcrispr needs to be maintained, and this may not continue into the future. Migrating away from this distribution system would require significant development work, but if we simply reduce the number of payouts, we can easily migrate.
When a large donation occurs, most donors lose out: Each 2-week round has a 1M GIV allocation. If the GIVbacks amount to give out exceeds 1M, every donor’s GIVbacks amount gets proportionally scaled down. This means that if there is a large donation in any round, the majority of donors end up with very little GIV in that round, and most GIV goes to the big donor, whereas if they donated in a different round, they would have gotten way more GIV. This is not a theory, this happened several times, like in round 16 where 1 donor donated $200k and took over 90% of the GIVbacks.
GIVbacks hasn’t succeeded in building a donor community: Giveth has a strong community of project owners who engage with our content and participate in our events, but we lack a strong community of donors. In fact, the biggest community of donors are people who also own projects.
Proposal
GIVbacks V2 aims to address the aforementioned problems by reducing the number of donors rewarded every round, and adding an element of chance.
How It Will Work
1. Raffle entries
Each donation made in a GIVbacks round will be considered as an “entry” (with a relative weight) into a GIVbacks raffle
The relative weight of an entry depends on the size of the donation, and the GIVpower rank (i.e. GIVbacks percentage) of the project donated to (e.g., donations to top-boosted projects have a greater likelihood of winning that a same-size donation to a lower boosted project).
We will simply multiply the GIVbacks % by the donation USD value to determine the weight of a particular donation made during the GIVbacks round (this is the field valueUsdAfterGivbackFactor in our backend)
2. Selecting the GIVbacks recipients
After the round ends we will use the data we receive from the round with Google API to choose 5 random donations whose donors will split the pool of GIVbacks for that round.
Before announcing the winner, our recirculation team will review only the 5 donations that were selected to ensure that funds were not recirculated. If recirculation is identified, we will randomly determine the next winner
This will cut down our recirculation process significantly, from hundreds of transactions to 5.
3. GIVbacks Tiers
The randomly selected GIVbacks recipients will get GIV back according to the following “tiers”
1st place: 50% of the GIV pool
2nd place: 25% of the GIV pool
3rd place: 15% of the GIV pool
4th places & 5th places: 5% of the GIV pool each
Each donor can only win one prize per round.
The GIV pool size will be proportional to the total amount donated in that period, i.e., the total amount of GIV in the “GIV pool” is equal to the amount of GIV we would have given out in GIVbacks V1 (considering all the donations).
4. Announcement & Distribution
Winners will be announced biweekly through Twitter Spaces, hosted by @Griff & Aubtoshi. We will announce which donations (to which projects) were the “winning donations”.
Each Twitter space will have a different theme, that aims to build and strengthen our community of donors. Some examples:
People Who Donate: The Lifestyle of Donors Around the World
Regenerate! A Sit Down With Special Guest ______________
Verified Good: Meet The Verified Giveth Projects Doing Good In Web3
Each show will run for one hour and will include an intro, episode theme, special guest, donor highlight the “winning draw” and a final closing out/final words and thoughts from Griff. The main host will be Giveth and the two Co-Hosts will be Aubtoshi & Griff.
Each show will be on Wednesday (the 1st day after the GIVbacks round ends) and will serve as the end of one round and kick off of the next.
Each show’s space link will be shared one week prior to get RSVP’s to the event
GIV for V2 will be distributed via multisig txs (allocating a GIVstream to the 5 recipients).
Things that won’t change
The maximum GIVbacks pool per round will be 1 million GIV and the amount distributed will be less if there are not many donations to verified projects.
GIVbacks rounds will still happen continuously - as soon as one round ends, the next begins
GIVbacks rounds will last 2 weeks and will be numbered the same.
GIVbacks will still need to be “claimed”, and they will be subject to the GIVstream.
GIVpower users still affect which projects offer the most incentives to donors, because the top-booted projects give the donor a greater likelihood of winning.
GIVpower parameters stay the same.
Implementation
After advice process, and if this proposal is approved, we will test out this program through a gradual roll out:
For the first 3 rounds, 1/2 the GIVbacks will be distributed with the V2 system, and 1/2 the GIVbacks will be distributed with our existing V1 system. We will collect feedback and observe community response through this 1st month.
If things look good, we will move entirely to GIVbacks V2 by the third or fourth round, or return to the forum for further advice process.
The GIVeconomy WG will manage copy changes to the Dapp (e.g. GIVbacks messaging, GIVpower messaging) to align with these adjustments
We will also create and adapt the following content pieces to help onboard our community to GIVbacks V2, in alignment with these changes:
Text and Graphics explanation for GIVbacks on Donor page of Giveth Docs
Text/Graphics updates for 2 Blog Posts about GIVbacks if possible
Updates to GIVbacks Youtube videos in Donor & Project courses
New Blog Post for Giveth blog about new program - V2 changes
Updated copy on Project pages on the Giveth Website outlining GIVbacks (short and concise statements about GIVbacks via donating to “this specific verified project”)
Short 30-60 second explainer Video outlining new GIVbacks program
Newsletter announcement in each issue that comes out about the upcoming event
Conclusions and Request for Feedback
This proposal for GIVbacks V2 is a really promising solution to the above problems:
Limiting GIVbacks recipients limits recirculation review required per round
Limiting distribution transactions alleviates our dependence on Aragon & EVMcrispr
Ensuring each donor can only win one prize limits the monopoly a large donor can have over the GIVbacks pool (in many rounds one donor took over ½ the GIVbacks)
Biweekly donor-focused Twitter spaces & the introduction of the element of “chance” aims to organically build, strength & engage our community of donors
GIVbacks has always been about “rewarding and empowering those who give.” With GIVbacks V2, we’re enhancing this mission by introducing a system that doesn’t just reward donors—it gives every donation the potential for a big win, both for the donor and the causes they support. It adds an element of excitement and anticipation, and encourages a wider community to engage and support public goods.
So - what do you think?!
Sounds good, let’s give it a try
I like it, but have some suggestions for tweaks
I have a better idea for improving GIVbacks, will comment it
0voters
In addition to the poll above, we’re open to questions, comments, feedback and other suggestions for improvement. This forum post will be open for 5 days for advice process before moving to a Snapshot to vote!
Praise Aubtoshi, @Griff & @WhyldWanderer for their support reviewing, adding to, and improving this forum post!
I am so excited about these twitter spaces, and this change in general. We have relied n projects to bring donors into Giveth, and I really think this change has the opportunity to bring new donors in that are excited to participate in a lottery.
Instead of GIVbacks replacing the tax deduction system, it is effectively following the model of state run lotteries… but without being an actual lottery, it is actually more like a block reward.
I’m really looking forward to an interactive place for donors to come, share their stories and inspire others while teaching people about GIVbacks! I’m here to contribute and help lay out a clear and easy plan to help streamline the process of choosing these winners and to hold a fun and informative space for veteran and newbie donors alike. This community event will bring one round to a close by choosing winners while kicking off the next round, keeping GIVbacks at the top of mind for donors and projects.
I think a lot of valuable time is saved with this upgrade, especially when it comes to simplifying the manual checks that have to be in place. This will allow the GIVbacks program and donor base to grow and I’m excited to be on the team to help that happen.
What I’m reading here is that we’re solving an operating and technical problem wrapped into a solution which defeats the whole GIVbacks concept we’ve been communicating: to reward people all over the world for creating positive change.
In this case donors are not being rewarded and GIVbacks turns into a gamble.
I don’t have an immediate solution to above stated problems, but I’m not in favor of this proposal.
I’m open to be proven wrong or discussing this further.
Make a structure where you can reward donors by their participation in organic actions, so we fix a problem for Musicians, NPO’s and Individuals at the time of promoting something that comes from what we believe is meaningful, reward organic marketing actions with the GIVbacks, distribute those tokens to verified project owners to create a Marketing team with their interested supporters and make more efficient actions to onboard new supporters.
i don’t see any meaning on a raffle, i can see what solves in terms of time for the team, and i see the idea i’m offering requires time aswell, but is aligned to long term visions.
I see a fundamental change in the behavior we are promoting, and I don’t like it.
We will stop promoting the idea that “giving gives back” and that every donation creates an impact and is rewarded.
As importantly, we undermine GIV as a governance token. While many people might sell their GIVbacks currently, others use it to engage in governance through GIVpower and DAO voting. Shifting from a tax deduction incentive model to a lottery model might not only be less appealing for regens and more for degens, but also, this shift might create more sell pressure because it’s a lottery, not governance.
Furthermore, the claim that GIVpower is used as a mechanism for donors curating the platform gets broken. A few lucky winners will become whales (or sell) and curation will be less democratic.
Having said that, I’m making assumptions that might be wrong and I’m always open to A/B testing. However, I don’t think three rounds would be enough at all. I would go for three to six months (6-12 rounds) and another DAO vote to make the full transition.
I would be more in favor of having both models as a permanent state.
BTW… I would be interested in learning more about donors’ behavior now that we have more unique donors and more donations…
I am also curious to know what infrastructure will be used for the raffles.
Yes, pretty much understandable reasons for improvements and congratulations, sounds like the path that eventually will benefit everyone in the Giveth community.
The most important is that the donations amount factor still counts and will determine the chance of winning
As a concept, I loved the idea of the old GIVbacks but I’ve seen firsthand the friction that it caused our team and the lack of excitement it received from new donors, unfortunately.
I think this idea is worth testing out. I love the gamification aspect of giving people the opportunity to win more and I think turning the GIVbacks rounds into events could be much better for marketing.
One suggestion I have is to think about what the success metrics are (ex. number and amount of donations) for this, so we can compare this new approach to how we currently do GIVbacks.
I hope we can execute the raffle in a way that is transparent and trustworthy.
Maybe we can record by video this whole process, and post it?
This I actually disagree with. I hate the current proportional donation allocation, it sounds great in theory, but many times smaller donors have gotten screwed when they just happen to donate in a round where a large donor donated.
In many ways, there is already some randomness at play. If there are large donations in the round you donated, then you get much less than if you would have donated a few days later (in a different round).
To be more specific, as cited above, there are many rounds where 1 large donor takes over 1/2 the GIV, in round 16, 17, and 18one donor took over 90% of the GIV. This is still a problem as of recently too, I remember receiving over 1/2 the GIVbacks in round 51.
If we implement a lottery, smaller regular donors, in aggregate, will earn MORE GIV than under the current system, and large donors will earn less, and I think it is a good thing.
And of course, I think changing this system up has a great chance to attract more donors, and simplify the messaging of GIVbacks for projects:
“Donate to me every 2 weeks and you have a chance to win 500k GIV! The more you donate, the more likely it is you win!”
I love the idea; it can build momentum to incentivize donations. I agree that it might change the concept of Giveth as a platform where you get rewarded for making donations.
What I’d like to see happen is an experiment with Raffle to see how it goes. If it goes well, we should keep pushing until Gurves. In the meantime, focus on solving the operational problem Lauren was explaining, and when Gurves are ready, return to the original plan. I really love the concept of making projects investable and being an early donor to a successful project that makes me money.
I don’t think that’s bad; it’s how it works. Back in the day, our laptops could generate a lot of BTC, now all these supercomputers take it all. At the end of the day, this is what’s best for the network.
So cool how Giveth is always evolving & testing, I remember when we discussed this on spaces!
At first I didn’t like this proposal as it would remove the 50-70% back, which is a big deal. Reading @Griff’s comment about how 90% has gone to whale donors & this will help more smaller donors get rewarded, sounds like a good thing.
People love a chance to win. Curious to see if if it ends up leading to many more donors.
Hopefully $Regen fills the void a bit too because both guaranteed rewards for giving & a raffle would be legendary.
I like the idea as it solves the friction we have with the process but also understand most of the arguments on the opinions expresed .
I would try to rethink the tiers, if we add odds to the game, I would treat all winners the same. If I donate and I am one of the lucky winners, at least I would love to get the same than the other winners.
We can also introduce some other non economical rewards as one or two lucky NFT giver winner.
1 - Is this for 100% for all GIVbacks, like QF sponsors will enter a raffle too since they are technically donating to the matching pool?
2 - For the everyday donors (excluding QF Sponsors,) I don’t think 5 winners is enough, as for last round, (round 66) there was 25 Gnosis donations over $5 and 498 OP donations over $5. Seems like 5 winners for roughly 525 donations is pretty small odds for our large amount of everyday donors.
I think this is an interesting idea! Perhaps we can put out some options on the tiers and see what people think.
@mitch and @willy had a similar suggestion! I think we could experiment with just GIVbacks as a prize, and if it is successful we can expand to add other prizes like Givers NFTs, conference tickets, other tokens (from partners perhaps?), physical swag, etc. - would a really interesting partnership/growth opportunity.
If we migrate fully, Sponsors would also enter the raffle for their donations to the Giveth matching pool.
Speaking only to the sponsor part, providing GIVbacks to our QF Sponsors is honestly the hottest sales item for the proposal, don’t think we are going to see the same sponsor success if we now tell them the hottest item to be a QForcer is now up to chance…
Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments. The Snapshot is now live, please exercise your GIVernance: Snapshot
As written in Snapshot, this vote is to determine if we should try out this new process with half the pool going out as V1 and half as V2 for 3-4 GIVbacks rounds. If it passes, we’ll execute that, report findings to discuss in the forum, and hold another vote regarding whether to fully transition to V2 or not, or try another alternative.
I’m Nico, one of the core contributors of LottoPGF (for public goods to raise funds through lotteries).
Historically, lotteries and raffles have been a very effective method to fund public goods (some examples are: early US infrastructure, Great Wall of China, Ceasar Augustus’ Rome reparations, Harvard, Yale,…). And as one of the co-authors of The degens🤝regens Manifesto, I believe a raffle can be a very effective mechanism to incentivise more participation in the Giveth QF rounds.
However, reading the comments above, I think either a hybrid model (50% raffled, 50% direct GIVbacks) or a larger amount of winners (but not large enough to eliminate the “excitement” of chance) might be the better long term approach.
I also wanted to offer our team’s support in building this raffle in a way that is fully onchain for transparency and fairness, while keeping them gas efficient. Probably not as cheap as a Google API (I requested access to the linked Notion doc to learn about the thought process of using it), but definitely way more aligned, transparent and likely without modulo bias. Some people working on LottoPGF built the latest Devcon Auction-Raffle, and one of us gave a talk about how to make raffles fair - he picked a clickbaity title, but definitely worth a watch. Watch: " Kevin Tjiam - All raffles are scams: How to raffle the Ethereum way". So, let us know what you think and we can coordinate to build this together!
I do see the need to reduce the administrative burden and the need to move away from outdated software. But I don’t like the lottery idea. The basics are simply wrong. I am a big fan of UBI where money is distibuted in small amounts to many people. This works to decrease the inequality between rich and poor. This inequality is the heart of so many problems in the world these days, like hunger and refugees, just to name a few.
Lotteries unfortunately do exactly the opposite. They get small amounts of money of many people and distribute that to the happy few. So no, I don’t want a lottery model as a solution.
For me, a better solution would be to get rid of the Givbacks completely. That would solve your administrative problem and the outdated software. You would need another slogan though. Where giving gives back is no longer valid.
But anyhow, in the case of a lottery system it’s also no longer a valid slogan.
First forum post in Giveth!
