Adjusting the Mental Mining Reward Structure | #XIOfeedback

Hey, all Mental Miners!

It is time to reassess our Mental Mining Program.

We as Blockzerolabs are spending quite a large amount XIO each month on Mental Mining. Without looking at the exact numbers this probably adds up to a monthly amount that could pay for one or two full time developers.

So what value do we as a project receive from the program? Does it add up?
All in all the program has been successful. Since its inception we have established a solid group of active Mental Miners taking part on a regular basis. Some of these earn four digit USD amounts every month for providing critical feedback and innovative ideas. These citizens have become deeply involved and grown strongly connected with the project.

The two main goals of the Mental Mining Program have always been:

  • engage the community: we want people to learn about Blockzerolabs and to become active citizens that can help steer the project and help educate new citizens
  • actually collect feedback to create better solutions

These two goals coexist in every XIOfeedback post (not always with a 50-50 weight).

The current system certainly has some shortcomings:

  • limited ability to scale because all grading is done in a centralized manner
  • current rewards do not correspond to the actual value provided but to the relative value compared to the other participants (leaderboard rank), i.e. it does not matter how much value someone delivers but only on the leaderboard rank.

Changes to discuss here

The main and most pressing adjustment to discuss today is changing the reward structure in such a way that it will no longer be a fixed amount of XIO people can earn but rather a variable amount that relates to the number and importance of XIOfeedback posts discussed over a month.

  1. Each XIOfeedback (Mental Mining Task) will be allocated a predefined amount of XIO, e.g. 1000 XIO for a standard post and 2500 XIO for a priority post.
  2. The post will be open for commenting (feedback) for a duration of 4 days (normal) or 7 days (extended).
  3. Every comment will be graded along the following logic:
    – does it add a new and relevant thought (idea or argument) to the discussion (+1)
    – does it contribute in a special way to the discussion (clarifying or summarizing things) (+1)
    – at the end of the runtime all credits are added up and the allocated amount XIO is split between all participating citizens proportional to their credits.

What are your thoughts on the above proposed adjustment to the reward structure of the Mental Mining Program?


With this method i think we should have a better layout to show a rather set amount of xio each post can get depending on how long the post will remain open.
Eg. each post can only earn 10,000 xio, 20,000 xio and 30,000 xio

From what I understand these new changes will always have a predetermined amount of xio set by the person who create the post. Which to me means that if you have a set goal of xio you would want to distribute for that month you would just allocate the amount of xio accordingly with the amount of planned post.

I also believe with this new structure it might be more time consuming in calculating the amount of xio each person will obtain.

In psychology, we call an “anchor biais” the action of setting a standard before asking a question.
I love this anchor biais battle, with Jorn setting a “1000 XIO” reward for the post to test the reactions, and you to answer with a x10 anchor biais like if you did not read Jorn’s one.

OK, more serioulsy, I’ve got the feeling since the begining that the XSI/MM is cool but overpaying. And being in the top 10 since day 1, I would have 100% interest in not changing anything and keep earning $1000 a month quietly…
But I think we should all here forgt our personal situation, take some distance, and ask if the current situation is good for the project (not for us).

I was highly convinced some months ago that a caping to 1000$ was necessary to stop the very high expense. That was a great advance.
But I’m still convinced that one can earn a decent amount of $ without adding very high value, just being consistent in the answer given on the forum.
As en exemple, someone giving one impactful idea a month would be less rewarded that someone giving various medium/basic answers on every #feedback. That is 100% respecting the rules, while the one adding the more value is less rewarded than the other.

I think rewarding on a topic-based the added value people bring would be much more fair and efficient (you know I actually ended with the same conclusion :)).

I would add one point, to spark the discussion.
Sometime when I read our answers, on some topics, I’m not really convinced that any of the comment was very interesting (I said “sometimes”, guys :wink: ).
So I wondered how we could deal with such a situation.
Saying that the comments were too low quality and do not deserve anything would not be very encouraging and could damage the small community building around Mental Mining Program.
Maybe adding a bonus if the idea is used could be a way to deal with that.
That would look like something like “1000 XIO to be shared for those participating in that discussion + a bonus of 3000 XIO if your idea is used by the protocol”.
Zach already used that a few time (I benefited of it a few days ago) and that could add some balance and incentive in the system.

One thing to keep in mind: if the rewards are too low, or will be too split, that might reduce the motivation of the people to spend time on it.
Being a former bounty hunter, I know I did not participate in bounties where too many people already participated as I knew my chances of earning something were pretty low. I could have add value in the project, but that value would have not been rewarded in a “correct” way, so I did not want to support that way of giving good/great ideas for free.


I agree with your idea/proposal. The reward system should be something of a small ‘thank you’. The main reason that you participate in the mental mining thing is that you believe in the project, have an opinion and you want to share that. So I don’t think the rewards should be that high and certainly shouldn’t stand in the way of other investments.

Those figures where just an example, i was just simply saying give each post a standard amount of xio eg. 1xio, 2xio 3xio or better yet put a usd value to it then and I clearly understand that the aim is to reduce the amount paid monthly

First off, thanks for the clarification Jorn. The recent developments caused quite some confusion and I am rather demotivated to participate when the rulebook is unclear.

  1. Each XIOfeedback (Mental Mining Task) will be allocated a predefined amount of XIO, e.g. 1000 XIO for a standard post and 2500 XIO for a priority post.
    Given a reward per task is a good way to limit the payout. How about to state two limits one in XIO the other in USDT? That would make it more sustainable from the start.
    Struggle slightly with Priority. If something is important one should participate regardless of a reward imo. Perhaps state, complex such as related to Tokenomics, instead of priority?

  2. Assuming full time employment among many I would prefer if all posts have to end on a sunday evening and are open for at least 3 days.

“3. Every comment will be graded along the following logic:
– does it add a new and relevant thought (idea or argument) to the discussion (+1)”

Not in favor. Difficult to track, unfair as it puts first movers on an advantage.

– does it contribute in a special way to the discussion (clarifying or summarizing things) (+1)

I am certainly pro summarizing. Specifically if there are many posts. But I don’t know if it is good to say one can gain credit for summarizing after 10, 20, 50 posts and so on. It runs the risk of someone waiting for just these thresholds.

– at the end of the runtime all credits are added up and the allocated amount XIO is split between all participating citizens proportional to their credits.
Great. How about paid out monthly and if someone gained at least 100 XIO. Otherwise credits transferred to the next month.

Given the work that you mention I recommend to aim for something simple to set the payout.

  1. Participated +1 where participation is defined as more than “I like the idea.”
  2. Received most likes by other citizens +1
  3. Added a valuable thought and dimension to the discussion. +1
1 Like

I feel like XSI/Mind mining is good to have but my opinion is that BZ is seriously overpaying the rewards causing very high inflation. The money can be put to better use.

That doesn’t mean i am saying that mental mining rewards can be stopped but rather the “post” reward should be limited on a much larger scale than you propose (2500 and 4 feedback a month is still 10,000 XIO per person).

Are there any stats on how much the top rated feedback is absorbed by blockzero ? I am not taking away anything from the valuable feedback being provided and time taken by everyone , really appreciate that but unless that feedback is used it should not be rewarded that high.

I would rather see rewards lower, 500 for a standard post, 750 for a medium port and 1000 for priority post. If an Idea or a suggestion is used by block then there can be a bonus of 1000 XIO extra.

Not really knowing the expenses in past few months, if Blockzero is spending around $15k a month for XSI, those funds seriously need to be lowered.

In my opinion the scoring is ok as it is, it could just be limited to some extend. As of now i’m not sure how much we are spending per month … but if its a huge amount it could be cut off a bit. We could leave it as it as and just limit the monthly payout proportionaly not every post for itself. I also agree that some posts arent as important as the others but it could be averaged over a month.

oh nice… back on the forum! my retinas thank you.

I like that. I guess it really depends on how often posts are released? @jorn, you must have a running average for that, so can I ask, in the last 6months or so, how many Standard and Priority posts were there, and if they were given 1000/2500 XIO respectively, would to totals match, or would this new system be releasing more XIO than before?

Could the posts be released on a Thursday then? So it would either be Thursday → Sunday, or Thursday → Wednesday, essentially always capturing the weekend.

Perhaps it’s too rigid to set fixed release dates, so perhaps ALL posts have to at least capture a FULL Sunday in EVERY timezone.

Yeah, I like that. Still it’s rather manual/centralized scoring, but I think it kinda has to be to limit farming.

This is a very good point. @jorn, is there a mechanism in the current system that you use to balance this accordingly?

don’t worry, I agree.

Do you have a thought of how to limit farming in this case? Or do you think the process of being a unique citizen will quell the farming enough that it wouldn’t really be an issue?

I think this is a great idea. As someone who is consistently top 10 I will obviously gain less money, but I think this move is great for the project. I also find it helpful that the rewards will no longer be dependant on the balance of the user. If the user has a really good idea, they should get paid well regardless of the size of their wallet (in regards to XIO) Same goes the other way.

Also I just want to appreciate that we are back in the old forum. I love it here :slight_smile:

1 Like

It won’t be 10000 per person. The 2500XIO is for everyone per post. So if 5 people answer the post and all equally well each will get 500XIO.
Essentially if we have 4 big XIO feedbacks per month we will only spend 10 000XIO total.

This is actually the way it already works.


I think that this makes sense, although it might be a good idea to also add a possible bonus, if a certain amount of users reply and possibly also based on the amount of replies.
This would function as an arbitrary way of estimating the community engagement from a quantity perspective. Simply focusing 100% on quality could lead to users not feeling like they have a chance to contribute/earn.

That’s perfectly fine.
I think the bigger thing is focusing on only adding new information/feedback, which does mean that you will no longer be able to simply provide feedback on the OP without reading all previous comments.
This is good for quality I think, but also means that it will take a lot longer to provide a comment, which in my case may mean that I skip most questions, due to time constraints.

If the workload is ok, then that seems great.

I think we need a few possible standout rewards to be available for people who provide important feedback. Otherwise we risk losing out on people commenting, when they are maybe late to the question or barely have time to do it.

Sometimes the discussion in itself is important and other times there are just one or two crucial comments that move the project on.

Praise the Dark Mode Lord !

I would second this question.
Maybe more similar metrics to even it out? such as most commented reply etc

That’s fab, I just could not read it in the suggestion at hand:

I think the risk of farming or exploiting this mechanism is rather little. One citizen - one like per post. Yet, several accounts managed by same citizen could be an option.
Some restricting to not game this:
Perhaps add requirement that one has to post a comment at least with 100 words before likes can be given away?
Limit the amount of likes awarded to same citizen per month?

first of all, I would like to discuss the very fact of the existence of this rewards project. Until a few months ago there were dozens and dozens of participants, while today we are reduced to a few, although I must say that at least the conversation in this way always remains elegant and constructive. If you decide to keep the mental mining program, you need to find new lifeblood, attract new people to participate.

As for the fixed amount of rewards for each post, there are both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that small investors can earn money that is otherwise out of their reach. The downside is that, by no longer receiving a percentage of the tokens that people already own, they may no longer have an incentive to keep their tokens and accumulate more. In practice, we could see a capital flight. For example, there could be users who kept 100,000 XIOs in their wallets just for the mining reward each month. If the reward no longer depends on their XIO possessions they could sell them.

Well this is more or less similar to how it has always worked so far. so it’s fine for me to have this kind of timed approach

this aspect is also the same as in the past. Nothing new, from what I remember. so far, comments have been classified according to their value and how structured and useful they were. The main problem here is due, in my opinion, to the large amount of work that goes to the forum moderators. They have to read and decide on a personal basis (and therefore not perfectly objective) if a comment is worth 1, 2 or 10, for example. It is not a foolproof method, and in my opinion it is too much of a task for the moderators. It would take an automatic way of assigning scores that is clear to everyone. However, there is no infallible system from this point of view. It won’t be easy to develop one

Ultimately, I like mental mining as it has been structured so far and I wouldn’t change a thing

Not a big fan of this adjustment, not gonna lie. First of all, it discourages new users from participating since they wouldn’t know what to expect (when someone sees tiers like 1000$, 500$, 250$, 100$ it’s easier for them to understand the rewards and get involved). With the move from the old 2020 system to the current one we already lost lots of users (sure, some of them were probably farming, but others probably got discouraged by the significantly diminished rewards), and with this new one we’ll probably lose even more people :confused:

Also, the amounts earned not being a percentage from the size of the wallet can also backfire by having lots of people farming with accounts that have 250-1000 XIO or less, and it discourages buying XIO and holding it for the rewards instead of selling it on the first pump. For example on the older 2020 system a whale holding 200k+ XIO was motivated to keep all of them untouched, while with the new system there’s no incentive for large token holders to hold a depreciating asset.

So all in all, I would keep the current system and instead I think Blockzero should focus it’s attention on something that is seriously lacking since day 1: marketing.

Edit: there’s one more thing… Are we using tribe or this forum? Both? Having two accounts and having to login here or there overcomplicates things, especially for beginners.