[GOVERNANCE IMPLEMENTATION] Lessons from token distributions

I’m an enthusiast of Superalgos mainly because of two core values: TRUST and COLLABORATION.

I admire how clever is the general architecture of the system, and i specially think that the governance project is the cornerstone to allow the core values of Superalgos vision to be actually implemented in a healthy, respectful, sustainable and scalable way.

I admire the conceptual strength of the governance system and it’s a big succes to have it coded and to have in place and running for the last 4 months.

Nevertheless, i think we must not forget that the governance system is just starting to be tested by the real implementation of the monthly distributions events.

These distribution events have become an essential part of the team’s and contributors’ life because they are the test instance for all the community. The distribution itself is the result of the combination of many factors, some of them explicit, ‘objective’, rational and known, and others, implicit, subjective, irrational, unknown and even subconscious.

In order to break down the distribution process and to be able to reflect on it, i first share a sample sequence on the steps involved at all levels: ( community / leaders / teams / team members )

1.- Acknowledgement of all the work done in the month ( what, where to find it, and by whom)

2.- Appreciation (always subjective) of the value created with that work.

3.- Agreement on what is going to be included and published in the PoV reports (formely PoW)

4.- Consensus on how to distribute the token pool among contributing members

5.- Start of the distribution schedule, conversations and negotiations among ‘community members’ relative to each day’s goal within the governance schedule.

6.- DAY 1: Publishing of the PoV report (admittance or rejection by Superalgos Blog editors)

7- DAY 2: Pools Weight Voting ( senior token holders evaluation of the relative weight among different project areas, in december there were 2 main options, ‘governance’ or ‘teams work’)

8-- DAY 3: Teams Weight Voting (last 2 months big support to ‘teams’ as a preferred way of the project to evolve, around teams and team leaders)
[only main token holders have significant influence on the distribution among existing teams ]

9.- DAY 4: Placing Claims (here is where individual contributors begin to participate)
[still many contributors do not do it correctly, do not know, do not receive sufficient suport in their teams ??]

10.- DAY 5: Voting for Claims (here is the decisive step currently not being sufficiently implemented )
[lack of understanding / lack of leadership / lack of time of those who really know how it work / lack of proper conversations to get support and negotiate alliances….??]

11.- DAY 6: Auditing / Reviewing all is good (only minor adjustments are possible, only relative to individual claims and voting)
[TEAMS WEIGHT are not able to be changed]

12.- DAY 7: Run Distribution Process (REALITY ! )

Based on this 12 steps, i will post some use cases taken from the past distribution in order to ilustrate some aspects that are not yet visible and that i think the community should be aware of in order to contribute ideas and actions to make the implementation each month better.
Read you around !

1 Like

For the Education project side of things here is the article I promised. This is just a draft link at this point still waiting for the official publication on the blog

Education Project Formation: Natural Move toward Decentralization

Thanks for putting into the public the result of your own reflection about the hurdles to lead a team and cluster of teams…and also to provide the current status of your agreement with Julian to separate actual Education work (what you will be focusing in) from governance…what unfortunately overloads Jullian as blog editor to be the gate keeper until we find a better method…
This article also helps everyone wanting to contribute from now on, to know the rules before investing their time…avoiding unpleasent surprises of policy changes exactly at the moment of the distribution after all the month jobs is already done and past. (what unfortunately is the price that many of us paid in the last 2 distributions). Nevertheless this outcome is within my expectations of something that is being tested while being implemented, this is the dynamic nature of a project like Superalgos…
I wish however, that the ecosystem could profit from all the individual lessons in a constructive way for the betterment of the whole and away from a rigid and personal perspective from anyone in the project.
Those who have the ‘leading power’ at this incipient stage of decentralization have the greater responsibility in shaping the ecosystem. I trust that their broad vision and engagement will integrate divergent aspects into a more comprehensive whole.