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.
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 ? 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”
Yo! I’ve been playing with our swag shop, and I’m thinking… we could actually just open it up so anyone can pay with their card & then we could generate some funding for Giveth that way.
As it is now, you can only pay with gLove & charge it to Griff who gets reimbursed from Giveth, but actually a lot of people want swag and are happy to pay. This seems a very easy and logical way to generate a little revenue.
? 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.
