Hi! I created a reward system that will be relevant to all active users. More details in the application. Thank you all and good luck to the other participants! Telegram username: @soundsond
Sent a submission! Thank you. Telegram username: @yudinao
Subbed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bWf9b_nzqVS5oVZNXjqeeB3xLvrxRegr4ekDnTJB6nA/edit?usp=sharing
I want to suggest a contest for rewarding recurring efforts of Free TON community with an exponentially growth in Free TON userbase as well. This first contest is on an experiment basis and then on community demand it can be repeated as a weekly contest for Free TON community.
This contest will work very well practically and userbase with active members will grow exponentially and even new users will also start contributing just after joining.
Contact: Telegram
I Sent a submission!
Forum username: Olessia
I wrote a submission, which is admittedly a bit short, but I leave it to the judges to read between the lines.
basically we reward the first 10 submissions every week who qualify in a 6-tier system.
Here…
Recurring efforts contest
Entrant: @hortonelectric
Entry details:
https://demo.hedgedoc.org/s/P5xJt-hwX
proposed reward levels: WEEKLY 6-tier system
100 TON crystals
500
1000
2000
5000
10000
proposed free-form submissions
people can submit a link to a picture of their middle finger if they want. Anything goes.
self-graded
Let people choose their own tier for this week. If they are worth 100 crystals this week, fine… they have to post their submissions, maybe they are busy that week. Or maybe they cannot post last week so they post this week and want 5000 because it’s amazing work.
Let them decide how much they deserve, let the judges decide if it’s merited.
Cyclical
every week a new contest is created. every week when the previous contest expires, it goes into voting. After a week of voting, the results are finalized. Another week later, the payments are disbursed. Cyclical, like row-row-row your boat.
Methodology
Step 1: select a tier (ex: 100 crystals)
Step 2: submit work to contest (ex: research blog post)
Step 3: receive feedback/reward
Setting Tasks
Again, it’s free-form. Since submissions can be anything, the contest descriptions do not need to be anything. The idea is to set up 6 contests. 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000.
The forum and the chats are enough to get people working together and asking each other what they might want to build. There’s no need for all the racket about which prizes to give and deadlines and which types of research are worth pursuing.
No one small group of people actually has a clue what the entire world needs. We should not be asking a small jury to vote whether or not research is worth pursuing unless they are willing to provide resources in advance to pursue their agenda.
KPI definition
The system defines KPI as subjective to the contributor. Every week they can apply for only one payment tier for a single piece of work.
Assessment procedure
Why do we need to re-invent it?
The same submission procedure we use now, contest submissions and scoring/rejecting can be employed to discern whether or not the work submitted qualifies for the payment tier.
Judges are expected to remain objective.
Contrast wiki and support-driven approaches
Wiki donations, is very similar to what I’m proposing. someone posts a submission, and people ‘tip’ the submission. It doesn’t work in practice, because once the work becomes public, no one will pay for it.
Support-driven approach requires communication between two human beings, which is just too much work and requires resources to set up. Read between the lines.
Judges can be RECUSED
We need to be able to challenge judges who score poorly, and penalize them for abstaining. I understand this already is a thing, but it’s not easy to use right now or easy to do; visibility into who judges are is poor. Must be fixed.
10 per tier: maximum number of submissions for each week, 1st come 1st serve
This limits the amount of crystals going out each week to the following per tier:
1000
5000
10000
20000
50000
100000
For a total of 186000 TON crystals per week “theoretically”.
The first 10 submissions which are put in at the beginning of each cycle, which actually pass the judges’ scrutiny, are counted.
Spam submissions are rejected by the judges, including all types of spam, dickbutt pictures, scams posting the same type of thing 100 times, someone trying to pretend to be different people, etc… The judges have this responsibility.
It should be a known fact that the judges will go to any lengths to avoid spam being filtered into the contract.
This is the biggest hole in my theory, admittedly, BUT BUT BUT BUT, if we can just take for granted for 1 moment that we have a huge, useful centralized* infrastructure for preventing spam, we should employ that. I’m not going into details, but think about forum software et. al
Assessments: 80/20 rule
I predict 80% of the submissions will be rejected, 20% will pass. So, 37,200 crystals per week is to be awarded as prizes.
Opinion
I propose cyclical contests to reward piecemeal, incremental, and small contributions to freeTON.
Judges should be people who want that value increased and understand what leads to that value being increased.
Developers working in freeTON must be paid a fair share of TON crystals. All (including free-form, recurring, ongoing, open-source, philosophical, and obscure) individualized contributions should be acknowledged and rewarded.
A decentralized system cannot reward planned/unfinished work or incubate projects.
Judges must prove commitment civic duty and responsibility, ability to abstain from voting, and should NOT need to prove any kind of technical expertise.
Hello.
I submitted the proposal where developed reputational system and deSupport mechanics provide fully decentralized volunteers rewards.
Я добавил работу
мой телеграм @Den600
Dear Jury Members,
Please find my submission in PDF file.
Telegram Id : @am_kira
Thank You
Hello!
My submission: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IbXT6Z0f8UJnQhsoa_V9j6ZasWpn1Kqb/view?usp=sharing
My Telegram: @cryptoq11
My email: [email protected]
My submission in PDF file.
I participate, application to PDF 
17 заявка действительно очень хороша
1 Like
How is that possible that by mistake of the jury members 1 submission number 3 and number 1 will get in top 10 2 times?
Please fix this immediately!
I think they’ll fix it in the final spreadsheet
1 Like
@sealgood
During final result prepration submission #1 will be rejected at all.
50%+1 jury voted in rejection.
There is need to improve voting interface so that everyone can watch more clear voting stats.
2 Likes