0xa8688227…9e63sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,188,078·view on Etherscan
make-flows.wtf-positive-sum@0x6a02...80F4
+1, big fan of flows but largely agree w volkys reasoning here
> @0x2897...c84F
>
> > increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
>
> I think increasing the flows budget is a simpler pathway to growing the pie right now, and a safer bet for the DAO. And there's already a pathway, although less explicit, for Builders to grow the pie: it's via proliferating Nouns and referring new people back to the DAO
>
> Flows is the best experiment for reliably doing good things in the world and realizing the purpose of the DAO I've seen yet. We should double down on it.
>
> But I don't think it's time to make considerable changes to the protocol. It has been operating for only 6 months, and this is too soon to get an accurate read on the current strategy.
>
> I'm also not confident we really know what's happening inside flows right now. We need better data and better dashboards.
>
> My feeling is we're overwhelmingly relying on AIs to oversee the whole operation, and I see little action from curators. I doubt that strategy works in the long term because as builders learn how to optimize those automated metrics they become meaningless (Goodhart's Law).
>
> I think before we step up the protocol, we need to establish a culture of due diligence and ensure we're funding the things we should be funding. Curators are the only sustainable way of keeping a high bar on the impact of funded builders, so we've got to ensure there are enough of them and that they're active.
>
> Can you share data on curator activity across all flows? I think we're missing that data, and it would tell us a lot about the current state of the protocol.
>
> important metrics:
> - curator diversity/vote concentration per flow
> - number of votes per flow
> - overall distribution of flow scores (histogram)
> - how many flows have been challenged. how many continued vs were cancelled
> - how is this data trending historically? are we consistently attracting more builders, more curators?
>
> I'm very supportive of Flows, but not convinced of the plan laid out in this proposal yet. That data might convince me.
>
>
> > @0x7f64...d6d2
> >
> > We've mostly seen builders collab / share resources when it's explicitly incentivized eg: in the Builder Kits flow. Outside of that, there's been competition because flows is zero sum, everyone is fighting over fixed budget / attention from nouners for votes.
> >
> > That's what we're trying to solve with this prop. The structure of flows doesn't incentivize anyone to work together, because there's no way to grow the pie. It's hard to get any quantitative data for you given that fact. I'll let @jango chime in on revnets in general
> >
> > re: increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > >
> > >
> > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > >
> > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > >
> > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> >
> >
> > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> >
> > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> >
> > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.