I was the author of the “Crypto Angels” proposal. I proposed it because many in the validator community believed that certain contributors deserved recognition (and a reward) for their exceptional support to the community. I suspect that my proposal started a new “trend” of retroactive reward proposals. Most of these were also legitimate, in my opinion. After the current set of retroactive proposals are approved/completed, I think our community should be more restrictive and selective about these proposals - they should only be approved for very special cases.
The reason I say this is because I feel like a lot of community effort is spent on these when our efforts should be focused on building and going forward. I recommend that we communicate to the community that going forward, these should not be approved (except for very special cases). This does not mean rewarding non-contest contributions should not happen, but we should focus on developing these reward structures in advance. This will also allow us to focus energy and effort in the areas where it is needed most.
I support your proposal my friend, all that you said is correct and I like your ideas. Our community supposed to be more selective and restrictive at all point against this reward. Every thing should be well investigated before selection.
I’m not sure that I fully understood, what you mean by Retroactive Reward Proposals, but let’s say I understand the main message.
Suppose a young man helps an old woman to cross the road. No one knows in advance what is leading him, except himself. A kind heart or selfish motives. This will become clear later. As soon as he asks or does not ask to reward his act.
I think the main idea is to reward kind deeds of those people, who just go further without demanding a reward.
And in this case, the old woman could hail the retreating young man herself and offer him a reward.
The problem #1 is that we are both - a young man and an old woman in one bottle.
The problem #2: by voluntarily rewarding a young man, the old woman will create a precedent and risk that no one else will help her cross the road for free.
How to solve this two problems? We just do not reward things of the same nature twice. Let the precedent act as a counter-precedent.
Some activities cannot be performed in a form of contest. Because as soon as you formulate it as a contest you will destroy the idea behind. If you would create a contest with promise to reward users for their forum activities in the future, you will get an opposite result as expected. Spam, multi accounts etc. But if you reward this activities post factum, you avoid this self-destruction effect.
I think, we need such mechanics to reward people or groups of people for the significant benefits they have brought to the community on enthusiastic basis without any expectation to be rewarded.