In light of the feedback and discussions surrounding the recent Provisions round, I’d like to propose a set of suggestions that could help improve the allocation process and better align the token distribution with Starknet’s long-term goals. These ideas aim to ensure that the community remains engaged, and that token holders contribute actively to the project.
Key Suggestions for Future Improvements:
Develop New Metrics for Engagement
Current on-chain metrics such as TPS and TVL don’t fully capture the engagement and long-term commitment of token holders. I propose developing new metrics that track wallet activity over time, participation in governance, and interactions with Starknet dApps. This could provide a more comprehensive understanding of who is contributing to the network’s success.
Weighted Allocations Based on User Activity
Instead of purely holding tokens, users could receive allocations based on meaningful contributions. This could include governance participation, staking, or interactions with decentralized applications. Such a system would reward those who actively help the network grow, rather than those seeking quick profits.
Community-Driven Allocation Criteria
By involving the community in determining the criteria for future airdrops, we can create a more transparent and inclusive process. A governance vote on allocation rules would allow the active community to shape how tokens are distributed, which could reduce criticism and foster alignment with Starknet’s goals.
Post-Airdrop Engagement Program
Following token distribution, we could implement a program to incentivize continued engagement. Users who stake tokens, contribute to development, or participate in governance could be rewarded over time. This would ensure that token holders are not only contributing but are also motivated to remain involved in the ecosystem.
Clearer Communication on Allocation Criteria
Transparency around allocation criteria is crucial. For example, the 0.005 ETH cutoff led to some confusion. A more detailed explanation of why these thresholds are chosen, and what they aim to achieve, could help mitigate future backlash.
A/B Testing for Allocation Methods
Before large-scale token distribution, I suggest running A/B tests on smaller groups to experiment with different allocation criteria. This will allow us to refine the process and assess which methods lead to the most engaged and diverse group of token holders.
great suggestions! Do you think there’s a risk that newcomers or small wallet holders could be at a disadvantage compared to more experienced users when implementing new engagement metrics? How could this be balanced?
Thank you for the thoughtful question! You raise a valid point. There’s always a risk that newcomers or smaller wallet holders might feel at a disadvantage compared to more experienced users when new engagement metrics are implemented. Balancing this is crucial to ensure inclusivity.
One approach could be to introduce tiered engagement metrics. This would allow different weightings based on the size and experience level of wallets. For instance, smaller wallet holders or newer users could be given additional incentives to engage, such as bonus rewards for governance participation or interacting with dApps. This way, even those with fewer tokens can still make meaningful contributions without feeling overshadowed.
Moreover, offering educational resources and tools to help less experienced users navigate the system could bridge the gap. This could level the playing field and make the entire ecosystem more accessible.
I’d love to hear more thoughts on how we could implement these ideas effectively!
Thank you for sharing these valuable suggestions. I agree that new engagement metrics would offer a more accurate view of active contributors beyond just TPS and TVL. Rewarding user activity like governance participation and dApp interactions is a great way to incentivize meaningful contributions.
I also support the idea of community-driven allocation criteria through governance voting, which could increase transparency and reduce criticism. A post-airdrop engagement program would help maintain ongoing participation, and clearer communication around thresholds like the 0.005 ETH cutoff is essential to avoid confusion.
Lastly, A/B testing allocation methods before large-scale distribution is a smart way to refine the process. Overall, your suggestions provide a solid foundation for future improvements.