Giveth Austerity Measures

First of all, thank you so much Mitch for putting thought into and constructing this proposal!

Conviction Voting: How is this proposal different from our current settings at what would be the impact of the changes? I see where you’ve laid out a request for 50k and 416k and what the requirements would be to pass them. Can you remind us of the current settings so that we may see how much the new parameters would change things in comparison?

GIVbacks Distribution I really have to disagree with decreasing the GIV factor for GIVbacks. We have been working so hard to increase the appeal of Giveth for donors and looking for more ways to incentivize donors to use Giveth. The 75% is really our main selling point here and I think we should consider cutting corners elsewhere before dipping into GIVbacks rewards. If anything, we should be looking at ways that we can strengthen the GIVbacks program. Maybe if we can make the GIVbacks program more appealing in other ways besides the rewards and at that point we can make adjustments…

Also, it just feels wrong to rescind what we have already promised to deliver when it comes to GIVbacks. We should hold true to our promises as an organization.

Incentivize Donations to the Giveth Project: This sounds like so much fun! And I love the idea of the NICE token… I’m curious to see what kinds of ideas for token utility we can come up with.


Conviction Voting Parameters are:

  • Conviction Growth: 8 days
  • Spending Limit: 1.25%
  • Minimum Conviction: 6%
1 Like

Based on the poll, we got a clear signal to go ahead and change our CV settings. I’ve gone ahead and created the vote on the GIVgarden.

Here’s the parameters and the appropriate Calculations :

User Params
Conviction Growth 8
Minimum Conviction 0.09
Spending Limit 0.011
Minimum Effective Supply 0.02
Solidity Params
Decay 9999949
Max Ratio 110000
Weight 108
Minimum Threshold Stake Percentage 20000000000000000

Please vote! :ballot_box:

1 Like

I’m looking at the CV params right now, I didn’t vote yet, but I’m thinking perhaps they are a little too conservative.

Working on this to compare our old params w the new: New vs Old CV params Giveth - Google Docs

Going to take a look right now w/ Griff and chat about it, but posting in case anyone else is wondering similar things.

Here is the Giveth Version of the dashboard:

1 Like

Ok, so for the conviction voting params, I do agree with the general sensation that things are passing a shade too fast for my liking. Sometimes I am just surprised by proposals passing. I think making them a bit more conservative makes sense, but the new proposal live in the garden seems to make it take nearly double the GIV to pass proposals (in comparison to the old params).

I’m particularly interested in proposals around the $30k range because it seems that most big conference sponsorships & development proposals cost that amount roughly. ETHBarcelona & the smart contract audit are two good examples.

GIV price today is about $0.10, so $30k would be 300k GIV.
Aside from Griff, our top token holders with voting power in the garden have around 200k GIV each liquid.

Right now, the actual GIVgarden has:
Common Pool: 54,896,368.42 GIV
Effective Supply: 4,798,042 GIV

I used these params to test scenarios in the commons configuration dashboard, you can play with it here.

I think increasing the number of tokens required to pass a $30k proposal in 2 weeks by about 25% feels good. I don’t want to make things TOO hard to pass, and with bear market and the GIV token price declining, it is already getting harder to pass proposal of that side.

I propose:

Spending Limit: 1.2%
Min Conviction: 7%
Conviction Growth: 8 days

For two weeks, this looks like:

In comparison to our setting as they are now:

It would take 8 regular GIV whales, in comparison to 6 to pass a $30k proposal in 2 weeks.
$10k, $5k proposals take about 100k GIV more on each to pass the proposal in 2 weeks.

I think since our biggest contributors have around 200k each in the garden, and smaller but active contributors have something like 50k each… these seem like “goldilocks” adjustments.

I put a bunch of screenshots comparing this proposal w/ Mitch’s and the original here

Mitch’s proposal may still pass in the Garden, but I spent the time working on this already, so thought I’d just post/share to get feedback.


I LOVE the NICE token idea.

  1. +1 @santigs would love if you kept this in mind

For the others… I have some questions:

  • Would we make this nontrasferrable?
  • What kind of things would we talk about in the special channels to make them desirable? What do donors want?

I think that people definitely want swag & discounts. Maybe we can make some kind of quest/gamification system where you can add to your GIVpower multiplier with NICE or something.


We could create a non transferable “NICE” version of the PFP and give that as a reward for donating if you already have one of our “initial collection” NFT and use that as a gating system for the swag, staking rewards, discord power/access, etc. That way we can keep NICE token transferable.

I think keeping it transferrable allows for another market to blossom, laissez-faire economics. Also this allows it to be spent on things like swag or PFPs without having to do any spooky token things.

I like the idea of plugging it into GIVpower or other options but I’d like to keep the MVP spec simple for the sake of expediency.

1 Like

Let’s do it! I’ll vote for you!

1 Like

Following with interest but not a lot of feedback.

Based on feedback from today’s governance call, I created the vote to change the CV params as per my earlier comment. These have been reviewed by @mitch & @griff & had no verbal blocking in the gov call.

Here are the parameters & appropriate calculations:

User Params
Conviction Growth 8
Minimum Conviction 7.00%
Spending Limit 1.20%
Minimum Effective Supply 2.00%
Solidity Params
Decay 9999949
Max Ratio 120000
Weight 100
Minimum Threshold Stake Percentage 20000000000000000

When I inputted it, it looked like this:

Please vote!


re: GIVbacks factor change suggestion. We discussed it in the research call and the idea that… well, we should really motivate our team to support getting more donations on the platform… If GIV is at $0.10 and we get more than $133k of donations in a round, the max factor will proportionately decrease.

If we were to get more than $200k of donations, the max factor would be 50% automatically because of the gap on the amount of GIV we have allocated to each round.

I think the limit is built into the system as it is, and changing it to 50%… I’m not sure this will create a huge impact on our token in the bear. Apparently most people who get GIV form GIVbacks just donate it again anyway… our donors aren’t really the ones dumping the GIV, I think it’s more the farm side degens.

For these reasons, I voted “no change” in the snapshot

1 Like

Most of those calculations I would say are irrelevant benchmarks, we’ve never reached this 133k threshold and 200k in donations is a far off dream, the system has never kicked in and we’ve been matching with 75% since the beginning of the program, with the exception of certain Retroactive GIVbacks.

Do you guys have any information to back this up or was it mostly speculation?
GIV is being sold down the line because of the abundance that is being given, either from farmers, from donors, or from projects receiving the donations in GIV. I’m in favour of reducing emissions on all fronts.

I have also voted “no change”.

  • Word on the street of “Up To 75%” has been spread far and wide - we need a better reason than ‘Bear Market’ to change it and explain why we changed it.
  • It’s been clear that as the GIVeconomy gains momentum with more donations, the percentage will decrease; so the incentivization of donations seems a higher priority than reducing the benefits to donors.
  • And, it was made clear before launch that we needed to get this designed, built and launched before the Bear Market - the anticipation of which was much discussed, so my assumption is that we understood this was coming when we set the parameters.

I don’t think it is a “far off dream”, I think it is a clear benchmark that we need to corral our community around. This, imo, is one of the key purposes of the work that @qqsong @clara_gr & @rainer.hoell are doing with Connect.

We are starting to (and are planning to do more) onboarding of donors, targeting donor needs, getting more donations on the platform. We are also working on getting attractive projects on the platform & getting them to bring their donors.

@Griff goes through the majority of significant donations to verified projects every round when reviewing the list for recirculation. He checks to see where the money is coming from & has insight into how our GIVbacks recipients are using their GIV.


There’s no way to fully account and prepare for a bear market, we’ve been learning and make changes iteratively, the Univ3 Farm being a perfect example, the update to our CV settings, that just passed being another. The whole point of the austerity measures is to take stock of the situation as it, not as we imagined it 6 months ago and take action.


I remember forecasting at a drop to about 20 cents, and we are half that right now so I get the rationale.

What do we know now about the supply and how much faster it is diminishing due to the token value being so low for algorhythmic comparison :thinking: ? I’m thinking there is probably a threshold we can set as a trigger for “austerity measures” that are most contentious like cutting donor rewards / scaling back the program more significantly.

The CV params are through, the NICE token is warming up… I think we need to sit on the GIVback program reduction for a little bit and analyze it, work to get more feedback from the community; this would be a full scale program change that needs sensitive communications - you wanna do that before EThBCN?


Thanks @karmaticacid It’s really helpful to learn the target giving. If done right and with the right strategy with donors and projects, this should be a starting point not a “far off dream”

1 Like

Results are in! :ballot_box:

NO changes to the GIVbacks Factor: :no_entry_sign: