Definitely post creation and replying to a post.
Now the question is those who are not allowed to create a post and replying a post (those who has less than 1000 HOPR)
It could be a combination of the number of “Liking”, pages the person viewed and how long and how often the person visit the forum. We can come up with a formula and a threshold.
Post creation and replying to a post is already limited to those who has more than 1000 HOPR. So, spam-like post might be already mitigated to some extent however manual curation might need to be available as an option until the AI-based solutions is introduced. The question is who will be the moderator. My suggestion is the extraordinary council members that is discussed here Emergency Process: Ideas Wanted - #10 by satopin
If such moderation takes place, it should be publicly visible to avoid any misuse of this moderation power.
The factor of “Active participation” is only used to authenticate the Proposal Validity and effectiveness of the Referendum. So, I think it is not much of an issue to set the threshold relatively lower.
Should this parameter be global (i.e., at any given time there’s a single figure for number of active participants across the forum) or local (i.e., different sub-topics or governance areas have their own participation figures somehow)?
I think it should be global at any given time, let’s say, 3 month. So, any activity that is 3 months old will not be counted.
Yes, it’s important to try and make the metrics match the actions and desired results, rather than just saying “well we can only measure x,y and z, so that’s what we’ll have to use”. Because in any transparent system with meaningful incentives, those metrics will become the goal themselves for many users.
I agree that likes are basically meaningless here. In all our experimentations these past few years, using likes to meaningfully measure engagement has been the least successful.
On an unrelated note, I don’t want to go too far down the AI rabbit hole (as an editor, I’m a lot less impressed with LLMs than many). Several DAO projects are going full AI management as their goal and I think it’s unlikely to work and very hard to make legal.
That said, while AI is currently bad at high-quality content creation, it is already good at gisting (extracting useful information from stuff). I think there’s scope for some interesting research in using AI to assess contributions and participation, as well as providing newcomers with high-level overviews (I’m seeing a bunch of people who had to join late and found there was a lot to take in).
But I would want to stick to the old fashioned way for a long while yet.
considering telegram/discord “actions” sounds reasonable but how could that work from a technical point of view? on the other hand, discussed topics on telegram and forum seem to be different ones, as far as i can see it.
Yes at the moment they’re separate. Now would be the best time to change that, if people wanted to, but I agree that the technical considerations are a concern.
Based on these discussion, I’m proposing the following definition:
Based on forum discussions, the following definition is proposed:
An active participant is any user in the HOPR Community Trust forum who has, within the previous 28 days, performed one or more of the following actions:
Created a proposal*
Created a post*
Replied to a post*
Signed a proposal
Voted in a Community Trust vote or temperature check from their registered forum address
Posted a bond for a Community Trust proposal from their registered forum address
Participated in a proposal audit for a Community Trust proposal
*If an Extraordinary Council were to be created (Proposal #9) these members would have moderation powers to nullify these actions in case of spam or Sybils.
If you agree with this definition, please vote YES in the upcoming vote.
If you disagree, please vote NO. This will trigger an immediate further discussion and vote to define this.
I think this is a good workable definition, but please don’t be afraid to vote no to give this important discussion more time!
Thank you for sharing the proposal.
I have one question, though.
For those who have less than 1000 HOPR, it is only possible to be counted as an active participant by signing a proposal and/or voting, if I understand correctly.
That would mean that there is no way for them to be counted as a active participant if there is no proposal/voting to be signed within the previous 28 days.
Is that a deliberate choice? I can’t simply imagine that proposals/votings take place that frequently, so…
Is the community going to put proposals out every month, that seems like a lot and starts to become like a government whos elected member HAVE to do something and this IMHO leads to poor decisions and trying to hit KPI’s rather than sensible and well thought out proposals, votes, etc.
Just trying to get a sense of things moving forward as a lot of us have busy working lives as well to balance as well.
Not at all. No governance is good governance too, as long as everything is running smoothly.
The drop-off for active participation would just be to prevent people from being active at the beginning, ghosting, but their earlier participation affects thresholds down the line.
There’s also a liability protection angle. There have been (extreme) examples of people participating in DAOs over completely benign stuff, then a year or more passes, the DAO votes for something illegal, those people don’t participate or even notice, but their previous activity still exposes them to legal action.
So in fact this works well to your point: because people are busy and don’t have time to do lots of governance, it’s legally useful to automatically and regularly drop out of the system, as long as there’s an easy way to pick up again when you do want to reconnect
I heard a podcast with the founder of KaliDAO talking about designing AI agents whose role would be to encourage activity in DAOs, and it just seemed like a terrible idea: governance for the sake of governance will lead to bad decisions.