Thank your posting the latest results @tamlerner.
Now that we are a few cycles into this new system, I wanted to share one concern. I think there needs to be a way to measure authentic participation, because right now the system is rewarding participation for participationās sake. That can unintentionally disadvantage delegates who are engaging more genuinely with builders and doing the harder work of adding substance to forum discussions.
We have talked extensively before about the Collective rewarding delegates for authentic and genuine contributions. If that is an overarching value, then there needs to be some level of discretion in identifying when certain metrics may be getting gamed. Someone can always come up with a justification for their behavior after the fact, but if the system is purely metric-driven, it may miss the difference between genuine contribution and activity designed mainly to score points.
To be clear, this is not about the financial amount. The numbers involved are not large enough for that to be the core issue. The bigger concern is the integrity of the system and whether delegates and contributors can trust that it is working as intended. If the Collective wants participation rewards to carry credibility, the process needs to be able to distinguish between activity and genuine contribution.
As it relates to these latest results, there are patterns that stand out which could be flagged in future months.
I donāt want to take this thread too far down that rabbit hole right now, but Iād be happy to have that discussion separately and walk through the patterns Iām seeing and how they could be easily built-in to the compensation system design.