Update App Mining Eligibility Requirements

[GinaAbrams]

What is the problem you are seeing? Please describe. Right now, the requirements simply state that hello-world apps are not eligible. I think we need to be more specific on where exactly the line is drawn between apps you can log into but not do much with.

How is this problem misaligned with goals of app mining? Very basic apps end up qualifying, and I think we need to raise the quality bar.

What is the explicit recommendation you’re looking to propose? Change the docs to reflect that apps must have some level of unique functionality and interaction outside of simply logging in.

[xanbots]

Agreed. Once a user authenticates into an app, there must be at least 1 action a user can take within the app that is unique to the use case in order to be eligible for App Mining.

[friedger]

They even get top new apps rewards..

[joshthegreatavenue]

I have been vocal about some of the dApps such as SatsHi and MyPodium. I have yet to understand why dApps that has no update and growth at all is allowed to continue participating. These are the dApps that were caught cheating on PH score as well.

SatsHi and MyPodium has $20,000+ in total app mining reward and has zero to offer in return. Are we really okay supporting app that are providing zero value to the decentralized ecosystem?

[friedger]

@joshthegreatavenue "caught cheating" is a subject opinion. There are lengthy discussions about how marketing budgets can/should/might be used and what PH role is in that process. We can have a feeling why and app is a good app or a bad app, however, formalizing this in a fair, ungamable way is hard.

For this issue, I would say a good action is if an app can create, update and delete a data item. The app should specify which data this is before submitting the app. Ideally, this data is stored on gaia, if not, NIL reviewer will reduce the gaia score.

[GinaAbrams]

I have been vocal about some of the dApps such as SatsHi and MyPodium.

Yes we've removed Product Hunt, not sure if there are other issues with their eligibility?

For this issue, I would say a good action is if an app can create, update and delete a data item. The app should specify which data this is before submitting the app. Ideally, this data is stored on gaia, if not, NIL reviewer will reduce the gaia score.

We're implementing a part of this in the app.co updates issue linked here, and could likely add the section about create/update/delete data items. Not sure if that would help specifically with updating the eligibility requirements. Thoughts?

[friedger]

"A requirement for an eligible app is that a user has to be able to create, update and delete a data item using the app."

[GinaAbrams]

👍We can add that to the docs, but how do you propose it be verified? What would be different from the current process?

[Walterion01]

Is it not the NIL job? Of course, if an app does not use Gaia it will get a very low score. But in the future, it will be apps that do not need Gaia and just the secure sign in. Adding it as a requirement will abandon that use cases.

[friedger]

It is not about gaia, the data item could be stored locally or on a centralized server.

It is about the line that separates the simple apps from eligible blockstack apps. By adding this to the guidelines, it is easier to accept or reject apps on first submission.

Do you have a submission acceptance process in place other than checking the completeness of the data set? Can PH provide this? Or shall we make it community effort using TMUI or similar service that demonstrates/records publicly what the user is capable to do?

[Walterion01]

I thought you mean Gaia, otherwise what you suggested seems fine. I think what @xanbots said seems a more helpful way. Asking to write something looks very easy. It can be a series of questions asked in a form after submission, about what is the problem, how the app addressed it, and such. So the Mining team can judge based on that, and give it a boolean value.

[dantrevino]

Is it possible to utilize TMUI scoring? They have two questions that might go to the heart of whether an app is too simple or not: Q8: I found this website to be useful. Q14: I would reuse this website in the future.

I have not looked at the data, but perhaps there is a minimum score of between these that would filter apps that provide no real utility?

[joshthegreatavenue]

@GinaAbrams For app participating in the app mining program, how can we ensure that the dApps are also providing benefits to the Blockstack Ecosystem?

Such as :

1. Are these dApps growing their user base? (More Blockstack Sign-in)
2. Did the developers constantly making updates in improving their apps?

Regardless, dApps participating the app mining program should implement Analytics like (Fantom / Simple Analytic) to prove that they are constantly growing their apps. I think it is unwise to keep rewarding dApps that DOES NOT benefit dApp movement at all.

P.S : This only applies for those who participated in the app mining program. Furthermore, removing inactive dApps.

[GinaAbrams]

Are these dApps growing their user base? (More Blockstack Sign-in)

@joshthegreatavenue that would be nice! Please see #123 in regards to growing a user base.

Did the developers constantly making updates in improving their apps?

This is currently being discussed in #169.

[webwizart]

I follow the discussions in slack/discord/here and this is what I think. Today there are low quality in the app-mining program because it’s coupled with the contests. To be in rule with the contests you have to be registered in app-mining. I think this is a bad setup. The contest results are never finished products and therefor low quality. Because people start campaigns to promote their submission to the contest, and will have high social scores for that month and appear high in the ranking even with low-quality.

I suggest to detach the app-mining from the contests but keep all the app-mining rules in the contests.

• personal domain
• use auth
• updated logo
• use gaia
• no email
• no redirection
• ....

step 1 is a contest that prepares for app-mining step 2 submit for app-mining at this point we can raise the bar and add more requirements to improve quality of dapps. We could add some steps to ensure people have to do an effort like register a personal username on the chain.

• collections
• contracts (when needed)
• ...

The last thing I have my doubts about are the social scores, I don't have a solution yet but this is my experience. There was a time this meant something but today it's so easy to manipulate. I am a single developer on my dapp, a lead developer for 5 days a week, dad, husband and try to co-organize some Blockstack meetups. I barely manage to read what's happening in Blockstack and my RSS let alone to setup social campagnes and follow ups. This is the choice you have to make imo:

• spent time and effort in your dapp to improve quality
• spent time on a social campaign for a low-quality app

I choose the first one, I'm re-writing from scratch and implement some architecture so my dapp can grow and evolve over time. Even when it costs me my ranking, because I see app-mining as a small motivator but my end-goal is to have a product of my own with the Blockstack spirit and tech. I think that's the message we have to deliver,

Blockstack is a better platform to start your business/idea, with respect for users and developers, with a great community that will help you, and if you do your best it may reward you for your efforts on the road to succes.

Anyway it's just my 2 cents

[GinaAbrams]

Thank you @webwizart for this feedback! I agree with this direction of thinking. With two phases, the app mining section could also incorporate launching on Product Hunt as a requirement to enter app mining (#164) as well.

[cuevasm]

I think there are low quality apps in app mining because we allow low quality apps in app mining. Where they came from is pretty irrelevant and the contest certainly isn't the only driver of low quality apps.

Entering to app mining is supposed to be the quality minimum mechanism for the contest and to ensure all effort is resulting in devs into the program. Friction is good. If we want better quality, then there should be MORE friction (higher bar), not less. I think this is a non issue if we simply raise the floor on quality for entering app mining. We should remember that the contest is really supposed to be an on ramp for new people to the program, not something that's necessarily a super cohesive, repeated part of app mining for current miners. Because some are waiting for contests to open to submit doesn't mean to me we should restructure to accommodate it.

I definitely agree on raising the app mining floor, but I think any contests should absolutely stay directly connected to app mining to ensure contests are effective at driving new apps to the program given they cost money to run.

[joshthegreatavenue]

I recently mentioned about the benefits of joining the Blockstack ecosystem and app mining program. The truth is, we have to raise the bar higher because in reality, we are actually giving A Lot to the developers who decided to be part of the program. We gave money, exposure, support and mentoring without asking percentages from them. (At the Web Summit, Sigle and Recall gets a shoutout at Blockstack Booth. It is almost impossible for any developers or founders in the world right now to get such shoutout without paying a hefty sum.)

Other than technical challenges, they have of resources they can utilize in the Blockstack community and technical support for their app. There are a lot of dApp (Not every dApp founder) taking advantages of the app mining program and had nothing to offer to the community.

What I am purposing is :

1. New app must describe the solution they are providing in a user journey story. E.g : As a user, if I want to X, I will head to Y, and then get Z done. This is how I can get it done by using (App Name).

2. New app sign up must not be alpha or beta version. If they are still beta, the core feature according to the user story journey must at least be LIVE and Working as intended. The core feature MUST at least be Clear and Concise.

3. For second month participants, they must at least prove that people are using the apps. (We cannot go another year with dApp rising and dying despite endlessly giving out prizes.) I mentioned that there are decentralization trade off but we must also be smart with who we rewarding our prizes to. There are developers who really want to use Blockstack to the fullest and I believe we should pay more attention to these developers.

[dantrevino]

@joshthegreatavenue regarding #2, I dont believe Blockstack i considered full release version yet. We cant expect apps that are built on a beta-level framework to claim to be fully production-ready. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on blockstack.js' status.

3 How? For privacy focused apps, we specifically should not know that users are using them.

[friedger]

Some examples from the November period that appear to me personally as too simple

• Bookmark apps for a fixed collection of items

  • Everygreen Photos
  • Arcane Products
  • Startup List
  • Text Styler
  • Bible App

• Simple apps

  • Arcane Darkroom (photo editor for single fixed photo of London)
  • Daily Bookmark
  • pBookmarks
  • clickbox
  • NoteIt
  • DNotes
  • Copypaste

[friedger]

Merging #100 here:

There are more apps now that do work in principle without using blockstack auth

• Startup List and other collection bookmark apps (main feature: browse collections, blockstack auth -> bookmark an item)
• Arcane Darkroom (main feature: edit THE image, blockstack auth -> share)
• OI Timesheet, Dadroit JSON Viewer (main feature: work offline, blockstack auth -> sync)