DAO v0.3 Results

The third HOPR DAO governance experiment has come to an end. Nearly 150 people contributed to discussing our most technical topic yet, but the community more than rose to the challenge.

This post will walk through the results and high-level stats of the experiment. Now that we’ve run three of these experiments, we’ll be doing some in-depth analysis of this and the previous experiments to understand what worked well and where we need to make improvements.

Participants were asked to create proposals to answer the following question:

What dApps, tools, and/or services would you like to see built on top of the HOPR protocol?

The top three proposals were:

There were 148 active participants in the Discussion and Referendum phases. 265 votes were cast during the vote, with 6.4m tokens being allocated to the winning vote.

As always, the experiment proceeded in three stages:

The biggest changes this time were that proposals were not available to sign during the discussion phase (previously they could be signed as soon as they were moderated as valid) and members of the tech team contributed to the moderation by confirming that the proposals were feasible to be built on top of HOPR.

We’ll be analyzing the data from the forum to see what differences these changes made. But at first glance they were successful: people were in less of a rush to create their proposals, so more discussion and refinement occurred. This, combined with the additional moderation step, resulted in more robust proposals.

As always, rewards are allocated using our incentivization scheme, which combines automatic analysis via data plugins and a small manual allocation at the discretion of the moderators. This was supplemented this time with a 10% allocation from the tech team. These discretionary allocations are designed to reward people who provided strong contributions but may have been overlooked by the automated system. There are also several mechanisms to account for unhelpful or spam behaviour, and to balance out areas where the automated system swings too much in favour of a particular type of contribution.

148 people participated in the first two phases, which resulted in a total token prize pool of 10,000 HOPR tokens. However, because the conversation was so productive, we decided to bump this up to the next tier: 25,000 HOPR tokens!

There are also NFTs for participation. Everyone who voted will receive at least a bronze NFT. If you participated in the first two phases, you might receive a higher ranked NFT depending on your participation level. The same system which is used to calculate the token rewards is used to calculate NFT ranks.

Note that this experiment was just an attempt to crowdsource some ideas for dApps and tools. Please don’t expect a fully anonymous HOPR-based browser any time soon! But it’s been great to see where the community’s priorities lie, and to get a sense of the level of untapped technical expertise in the HOPR community.

As a result of this experiment, we plan to do two things:

Thanks everyone for another productive governance experiment. Look forward to the in-depth analytics and a new governance round in the coming weeks and months.

Rik Krieger,

HOPR Co-founder

Related posts:

You have everything you need to run your e-commerce business; a perfect Shopify store, you’ve tried all the marketing methods there are, and you also are getting quite a lot of traffic…

I continue sharing my personal experience with online tutoring platforms and now I want to present pros and cons of Eduboard tutoring service. This is another online tutoring platform that encourages…

I hear lot of people saying that they cannot dance. but this is not truth, everyone can dance, in fact the one who has never learned dancing can dance more beautifully because it is natural…