From a macro economics point of view the idea of matching a percentage of funding in $USD is not going to work in favor of projects over time. As the purchasing power of USD is diminishing this affects the impact potential of a donation because at the local project level the costs of supplies or resources is also going to carry/include the same trend of inflation.
Matching based on % of total tokens received rather than their USD value will better preserve purchasing power of donation over longer time horizon.
For projects where local inflation is following an increasing rate of change the opportunity to receive greater total supply of an asset that absorbs the depreciating value of their local unit of account is going to help dramatically and would also likely incentivize keeping a portion their GIV donations so they can continue to collect a higher allocation of GIVrewards assuming a GIVforwards type program were put into place for the projects.
The value is registered in USD but GIV is distributed…Projects that receive GIVmatching benefit from possible upside of GIV and other GIVeconomy benefits like the GIVgarden…
Based on what % of what total tokens received? I don’t really understand what you’re trying to explain.
Praise @mitch , for putting so much work, effort and energy into this spreadsheet. I want to take my time to go through it and give well-structured feedback.
But here are a few initial comments that come to mind:
a) If being a top-ranked project gives your donors more GIVbacks and donors with more GIV can provide more GIVpower. Aren’t we creating a system that significantly favors the first commers? If so, is this what we want to promote?
b) Love the idea of the GIVpower factor. IMO, this should be equal or higher to the donation factor, to incentivize people to lock GIV.
c) I would like to see a matching fund that would encourage many projects to do the right things like posting updates and measuring their impact. Rather than only benefit to the top-projects
Thanks for feedback on communicating better. Let me try a user story format.
As a builder and designer of communities, I want to understand tokenomics and stock to flow logic of Giveth, so I can better serve project leads in developing countries with off ramping and navigating their local currency exchange dynamics.
I think what you wanted to point out was that USD has an inflation problem, this means that donor funds don’t go as far for project funding because of the purchasing power of USD becoming diluted.
Unfortunately the benchmark comparison for the vast majority of crypto projects is their USD value. This is the basic and easiest to understand metric and there is already a robust and accessible network of APIs that allow us to fetch USD prices of most crypto assets in real time and retroactively.
To compare donations in a wide variety of tokens against some other token or currency value to determine the “donation value” would be an uphill battle against the status quo.
Yes I wanted to highlight that all fiat is currently inflating away purchasing power. USD included and simply holding up because it’s been privileged to be the default reserve currency over 20th century.
In my original comment I wanted to raise awareness that in jurisdictions where USD is no longer accepted or scarce; the possible monetary impact of a donation will evaporate because exchange rates for USD are different in black/gray fx markets.
Absolutely. I know these APIs can also return values in BTC/SATs. I understand and agree USD is the simplest unit of account from a basic accounting/budgeting point of view. It’s just not ideal considering the off ramping dynamics I’m accounting for.
My thinking is that a calculator function that can switch between USD/BTC value on Giveth would be valuable to users in those jurisdictions/regions where banking and financial infrastructure is unstable/evolving.
I understand and what I’m concluding is that I need to put together a spread sheet for my needs and accept the logic that is informing Giveth’s trigger mechanisms to be what they are.
I like quadratic matching best though I think maybe verified projects that weren’t able to raise donations should be treated as if they received $1 as a sort of social safety net. So the minimum shares a project can have is 1 instead of 0.
In regards to sybil attacks, I’ve found an article on how Gitcoin handles it here.