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 agree with @Juan and @markop.
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 18 one 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!”
That is just cleaner.
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.
Couple thoughts from the slithering snake:
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.
gm all! first post here
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.
The Snapshot for GIVbacks v2 trial has passed! We’re excited to try this out for the next 2-4 GIVbacks rounds (with half the pool distributed according to V1, and half according to V2).
Will report back after the trial with findings, feedback and results to continue the conversation.
Would like to share here my understanding of GIVbacks Raffle Entries.
First, to get a GIV Raffle entry, you have to donate at least $5 to Verified Projects. It does not matter if is during a QF Round or not, you have to follow up the calendar of our GIVbacks Program..
Second, you have to have in mind that there is a correlation between Donation Size and % GIVBacks of the projects and the odds to win the raffle:
Higher size donation + Higher %GIVbacks Project = Higher odds to win.
Therefore, the Odds depend on:
Remind that GIVpower is the main driver to increase % GIVbacks of the projects. It means: Projects with more GIVpower will reward better your donations. In few words, You get more GIV with your donations.
So, encourage your community to get $GIV on Optimism and Gnosis and stake in GIVfarm to get GIVPower. Remind that GIV stakers have the option to lock their stakes to multiply their GIVpower.
Invite users to go to Giveth donation Platform and can “stake” their GIVpower on a Project to increase their % GIVbacks and their visibility on Giveth. You can change your GIVpower Allocations anytime you want.
Hey everyone! Want to provide an update on the GIVbacks V2 trial findings so far. We kicked off the program and so far have one a complete round.
Here are some resources created so far:
Remember that we are selecting winning donations not winning donor addresses. Each donation has an associated number of “raffle entries”:
Total USD value donated from GIVbacks-eligible donations: $18,576
Total raffle entries: 10,705
| GIVbacks | Donor Name | Project | Donation Amount | Currency | Donation Value | Project GIVbacks % | Raffle Entries | Odds of winning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250,000 GIV | Unknown | Defend Roman Storm | 1.0925 | ETH | $2,580.65 | 50.00% | 1290 | 12.05% |
| 125,000 GIV | Unknown | Masq network | 0.44175 | ETH | $1,041.40 | 50.36% | 524 | 4.90% |
| 75,000 GIV | Anonymous | Electronic Frontier Foundation | 0.2 | ETH | $457.24 | 76.45% | 350 | 3.27% |
| 25,000 GIV | Anonymous | Defend Roman Storm | 2 | ETH | $4,724.30 | 50.00% | 2362 | 22.07% |
| 25,000 GIV | Anonymous | Defend Roman Storm | 0.108 | ETH | $255.11 | 50.00% | 128 | 1.19% |
Note: all the winners in this rounds were “anonymous” or “unknown” because they either chose to have their profile information hidden from the UI (there is a checkbox option for this you can choose when donating), or they did not fill out their profile with a human-readable name. All GIVbacks rewards for this 1st raffle have already been distributed to these winners.
Hello, greetings to everyone in the community, on this occasion I would like to give my opinion, I participate little but I read a lot, these giveaways were live, why was it not published on discord?
I cannot enter x to see the draws or listen to them because they cannot be seen in We encourage you to make it more transparent, thank you for your attention.
