SITG experiment #1 - Status intense micro adoption!

Archive
, ,
1

SITG stands for Skin In The Game. See: Status.app for background.

Desired outcome: 80% of core contributors use Status every day by October 22, before Devcon.

Risk and reward: If you succeed in reaching the desired outcome, you get the equivalent of $1000 from me as an individual entity. If you fail, you pay me $100.

Terms

  1. Initial period and agreement: This week, ending September 16, will be used as a a week to accept people submitting initial funding and taking accountability of this specific outcome. Once agreement is reached, the terms will be considered active.

  2. More funders: If more funders want to sign up, please indicate in this thread. For simplicity I suggest using the same terms and ratio of 10:1.

  3. More accountable people: If more people decide to take responsibility of this outcome, risk and reward will be split accordingly. For simplicity’s sake, a maximum of 3 people will be accepted.

  4. Negotiation: If you desire or have suggestions for specific changes in terms, please indicate so. For simplicity sake, there’s a strong preference of using these terms, so it’s more likely simple clarifications will be accepted as opposed to completely new ideas of how to approach this. Of course, you are free to post your own challenge and I encourage you to do so.

  5. Measurement: On Monday October 22, 2018 use a poll of random sample of Status core contributors (say, 20 out of 100) to get a statistically significant yes to the following question:

Did you use Status (mobile or desktop) every work day the previous week?

  1. Pay out and partial acceptance: If you reach 80% you are paid $1000, if you reach 50% or more I’ll pay out the equivalent of $500, if you fail to reach 50% you pay me $100.

  2. In case of disputes: a poll, to the agreement of both parties, will be posted where Status core contributors can vote on whether the payout should be accepted or not.

  3. Pay out and valuation: Equivalent of $1000 in SNT on Monday 22, to be paid out before end of October.

What you can do now

  1. Take responsibility for the desired outcome

  2. Provide additional funds

5 Likes
2

I am totally up for this, nice experiment.

3

yeah, i’ll stake $100 on this outcome. who else is in?

i reference here the discussion on user acquisition / paid contributor ratio:

and i’ll add the link where we can track desktop’s feature set for adoption:

2 Likes
4

This criteria is crisp for a prediction market on Augur. One can sell this market at .10 ETH and not repay if less than 80% of CC’s did not use it. You can buy it at .10 ETH and collect 1 ETH if 80% did use it. I’ll be happy to buy this contract :smiley:

5

This is an awesome idea. I’m in.

1 Like
6

Great to see people wanting to participate! To make sure we are using the same language and that it’s clear what everyone is committing, here’s what I’m seeing so far.

We have the following four pieces of data: (nick, role, stake, terms). If you are a funder the stake is what you will give the person accountable if desired outcome is met. If you are accountable, stake is what you will give the funder if you fail.

Right now we have:

  • oskarth, funder, $1000, OP terms*
  • exiledsurfer, accountable, $100, OP terms*

By * OP terms I mean: Assuming a different number, all the dollar constants are proportional. I.e. if someone stakes $100 as a funder the other implied numbers are $50 and $10, respectively.

@naghdy and @Ned could you please clarify where you are at? Not 100% clear and don’t want to make any assumptions.

I also realize I didn’t completely think through the multiple funders/accountable people part, so here’s a suggested tweak:

Each funder or accountable can suggest a band through which they are OK. For example, if I would be ok to fund between $500 and $2000 that means someone, depending on their risk appetite, can choose to self-risk $50 or $200. Another example: let’s say naghdy wants to fund $1000, if exiledsurfer wants to take on additional risk-reward he can say he is willing to risk up to $200. Alternatively, someone else could come in (say, from the desktop team) and that’s how those funds would be match. In these terms, the current commitments we have are:

  • oskarth, funder, $1000 (min: $1000, max: $1000), OP terms*
  • exiledsurfer, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*

Hope that makes sense, if not please ask questions!

@Dr.Dao yeah, prediction markets like on Augur is something worth exploring more :slight_smile: One thing that has be considered is the “responsibility” aspect and how it ties into work being done. E.g. I think we can definitely do this, so I’m not so much betting against it as incentivizing/funding focused efforts in it. It might be that this is just a cosmetic difference and as an instrument it is the same thing. I’m curious as to why this type of use case isn’t mentioned on their website? There’s some relation to bounties work here that hasn’t been fully fleshed out I believe.

7

Yes, i understood myself to be an “accountable” by staking.

@oskarth If there are going to be additional funders, i don’t understand how that would work - can / would “accountables” stake to more then one fund? sounds like it would get complicated for this use case.

I’d rather see a deadline for funders to contribute to a combined pool which accountables can stake against - in my case, i’m willing to up my stake proportional to the amount it ends up being.

Additionally, @naghdy, i’d like to see some institutional support from status itself in matching the fund’s payout, but not increasing the stake for accountables, as an additional incentive.

8

Yes, count me in for 100 euros (accountable) *OP terms

1 Like
9

Count me in as well.

To clarify - Oskar is there any limit to the number of participants you are willing to wager with? (or any number to a maximum of $1,000 in total?). Happy to be a funder, but want to understand the total possible commitment first.

1 Like
10

Not clear to me what is best or easiest setup, but we can use a combined pool. I’d suggest letting funders commit this week - flexible commitment can be done with a range and some caveats.

To clarify - Oskar is there any limit to the number of participants you are willing to wager with? (or any number to a maximum of $1,000 in total?). Happy to be a funder, but want to understand the total possible commitment first.

I was initially thinking maximum of 3 people, but this is a bit of any arbitrary limit. One consideration is that it should be as few people as possible that are accountable, so the connection to real work is more direct. What do you think would be a reasonable number?

Current state:

oskarth, funder, $1000 (min: $1000, max: $1000), OP terms*
carl, funder, ? pending specifics

exiledsurfer, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $X (proportional)), OP terms*
Ned, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*

Would be great to see people from Desktop team participate as accountables (we really need a better word… open to ideas)!

11

I’m in! $100.
Will post some thoughts on desktop in another thread for some product context

1 Like
12

I’m also in for $100, as accountable.

1 Like
13

I’m in as well! $100! accountable, OP terms

1 Like
14

Awesome! Current state:

oskarth, funder, $1000 (min: $1000, max: $1000), OP terms*
carl, funder, ? pending specifics

exiledsurfer, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $X (proportional)), OP terms*
Ned, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*
Chad, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*
cryptowanderer, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*
lukasz, accountable, $100 (min: $100, max: $100), OP terms*

EDIT: Actually min for accountable here should probably be 0, assuming total fund is only $1k or $2k and everyone is OK with getting proportionally less. Max should be assumed to be $100 unless otherwise stated.

I actually think 5 as accountable is quite a good set of numbers, as it leads to less diffusion of responsibility. If we can get enough funders to match it so everyone is at 1000:100 that’d be simple as well. If the total funding amount gets too high there might be some financial/legal concerns we’d have to check.

The main thing now is to get enough funders - if we can get 5 at $1000 each or so I think that’d be ideal, but if not that’d still be cool. Who is up for it?

15

I’m in $100 - accountable

1 Like
16

put me down for accountable - $100

1 Like
17

Will the oracle in this case will be a public group chat we subscribe to? Or maybe something like attending the use status sessions?

18

Bounties don’t signal the confidence of event happening and event completion is decided by the party creating the bounty. In a prediction market like Augur, REP stakeholders report on the outcome of an event.

It is already being used in this manner by other companies. An example: predictions.global

19

I would like to contribute as an individual funder with the same amount / terms as Oskar.

If others agree, as an organization I recommend we also provide up to $9,000 of funding for this experiment.

This would bring us to a total of $11,000 up for grabs if we succeed, and 4 more open slots for accountable people who want to get involved (a little over 10% of the org).

Perhaps a bit too bureaucratic, but one way to track progress would be having everyone in this thread help to maintain an ongoing spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q3BkQYUkpf60JhKzSmrgzJXhrxOkPGvH9sAKD05poJM/edit?usp=sharing

1 Like
20 
oskarth, funder, $1000 (min: $1000, max: $1000), OP terms* or Status terms
carl, funder, $1000 (min: $1000, max: $1000), OP terms*
Status match, funder, $9000 (min: $5000, max: $9000), Status terms

exiledsurfer, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $X (proportional)), OP terms*
Ned, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*
Chad, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*
cryptowanderer, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*
lukasz, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*
jonathan, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*
Graeme, accountable, $100 (min: $1, max: $100), OP terms*

@pedro @vitaliy @patrick same terms, one more spot

Thanks @carl and Status matching sounds great! I’d be fine with using this evaluation criteria, though I’d put the primary onus on making sure this is tracked/proven properly on the accountables.

@exiledsurfer @Ned @cryptowanderer @Chad @lukasz @jonathan @Graeme are you all OK with using the spreadsheet above to evaluate success criteria of above?

Assuming everyone is on board with it, we have 4 more slots for accountables, but other than that we are ready to roll!