Check and confirm scope so that we maximize likeliness to receive an OP grant in OP Retro Funding round 6, and maximise our efficiency in working on this
Notes
The key step is to get a clear list of the scenario/story we are looking at, and what properties/requirements need to be met in that story. Agree.
I'd add this to the requirements: "When a user receives a new NFT, and new weights are calculated, each voter has at least as much absolute weight as they did before the new calculations. Minting new NFTs does never decrease the absolute weight of any user."
If we find that it's in conflict with the fundamental properties, we can go back to our current solution.
Plus I agree, let's review all other issues, too. Open issues from my point of view:
agree on the design goals we'll address in the simulations/theoretical analysis
define the metrics to analyse these design goals
define the scenarios to run the simulations
run the simulations
present results
create the documentation so that other can verify their design equivalently
For the requirements:
we have to make up a scenario for the voting (red, blue, yellow NFTs, supply, wallets&distribution, participating wallets)
design goal 1: our weighting mechanism should produce expected results (pls suggest an easy metric @eightarmsninebrains e.g. Monotonicity)
design goal 2: we avoid extreme dictatorship by our vote weighting, looking at the actual distribution NFTs/wallets in our ecosystem), here I'd measure the Nakamoto index for our setup, and write how to interprete it
We can add 1-2 more design goals that you consider relevant and feasible. Plus let's see how to integrate the indicator function here.
I feel it would be good to keep both separate. Meaning: we create two separate stories, mechanisms, simulator demo notebooks, and let ppl know that both (Dynmic Network-Weight Scaling & Indicator Functions) can be combined, see our particular use case.
Description
Check and confirm scope so that we maximize likeliness to receive an OP grant in OP Retro Funding round 6, and maximise our efficiency in working on this
Notes
I'd add this to the requirements:
"When a user receives a new NFT, and new weights are calculated, each voter has at least as much absolute weight as they did before the new calculations. Minting new NFTs does never decrease the absolute weight of any user."
If we find that it's in conflict with the fundamental properties, we can go back to our current solution.
Plus I agree, let's review all other issues, too.
Open issues from my point of view:
For the requirements:
We can add 1-2 more design goals that you consider relevant and feasible.
Plus let's see how to integrate the indicator function here.
I feel it would be good to keep both separate.
Meaning: we create two separate stories, mechanisms, simulator demo notebooks, and let ppl know that both (Dynmic Network-Weight Scaling & Indicator Functions) can be combined, see our particular use case.
@eightarmsninebrains WDYT?