The Mental Mining Program is evolving. Just recently we introduced a major change to our reward structure [①] and to the method of allocating those rewards [②]. These changes, in particular the use of the coordinape tool to allocate rewards, had been introduced as being experimental. We are now looking to systematically evaluate these experiences and are asking for your feedback.
Initially rewards had been linked to Citizen’s XIO token holdings. Reaching a higher rank on the leaderboard one would also receive a higher percentage earning on their holdings (limited by a maximum cap). This system had always allowed larger holders to profit stronger than someone with small holdings.
To make participation in the Mental Mining more attractive to new Citizens (with small holdings) we have been experimenting with a different approach over the last weeks. Rewards are calculated solely based on the contributions to the discussion and are no longer linked to wallet holdings. This allows anyone to earn substantial rewards simply by adding value to the discussion. The main concern with this method is that people can cheat the system by simply creating multiple accounts and earning on each of those.
Until recently all grading had been performed centrally by a single person (expert grading). A predefined grading logic was used to determine the number of credits each participant received. There are some disadvantages with this approach. For one, the fact that the whole process had been performed by one person only made it somewhat subjective. There is also a natural limit to the amount of discussions (comments) just one person can grade by themselves, therefore limiting any future expansion of the program, unless additional resources for grading would be allocated.
Currently we have been experimenting with the coordinape tool. Each participant is asked to take part in the collective allocation of rewards using the coordinape tool. The goal with it is to crowdsource the grading process thus letting all participants collectively come up with a fair distribution of the available rewards. One disadvantage of this system might be seen in the fact that all participants are asked (required) not only to provide quality contributions to the mental mining assignment but to also take the time and energy to read through and grade all comments.
This is a short (4:42) introduction video:
There are two Mental Mining assignments that have been graded using the coordinape tool.
You can view the results on the coordinape tool by logging in the tool with your registered wallet. Please do so and inspect the graph. The examples display the results from the second assignment. What information can we extract from it? How does it help us? (If you do not yet have a registered wallet please follow the steps described in this post and wait for your address to be added manually on the backend.)
What do you like about the new system? What benefits do you see?
Which problems do you see? How would you reduce some of the friction points?
What potential threats do you see? How could people try to game our system? How can we identify potential cheaters? How can malicious behavior be prevented?
Can the coordinape tool actually help create a more valid grading result?
Should we require all participants to log into the coordinape tool and actually take part in the allocation process in order to become eligible for rewards? Or should this be optional?
Looking at the results (s. screenshots above) do you feel the outcome is valid? Has the tool lead to fair results? What questions come to your mind?
- How should core team members be treated in this process? Should core members be encouraged to participate in the Mental Mining Assignments? Should they be allowed to earn credits that convert into XIO?
This assignment will be active for one week and close on August 31st. You will be able to perform the grading on this discussion with the coordinape tool until Sunday September 5th.