Yield Mission Partnerships | Structure, Incentives, and Scalability Discussion

The last few weeks, we have been discussing three primary avenues to really expedite the growth of Blockzero Labs into a top 100 project: Partnerships + Paid Media + Thoughts Leaders

Partnerships, in particular, are focused on leveraging outreach with other communities/projects to increase cross-marketing campaigns and opportunities.

When thinking about ways to approach this, we first began with the question:

  • What value can we actually add to other projects in the industry?
  • How can we leverage our quality and engaged community?

The answer we kept coming back to: Yield Missions

What is a Yield Mission?

In short, a yield mission is a campaign with a clear objective, budget, timeline. Up until this point, “Yield Missions” have been something we have used internally to help Blockzero Labs incentivized very specific and KPI-driven action for our community. However, I feel as though facilitating these yield missions for other projects is one of the fastest and cheapest ways to grow.

Yield Mission Example

Here is a very rough example of what partnering with another project to host a yield mission could look like.

  • Project: Avalanche
  • Objective: Use their bridge
  • Budget: $50k AVAX
  • Goal: $1M Assets through bridge
  • Timeline: Two Weeks

Taking this outline of a yield mission, we can then reverse engineer specific incentives for our Citizens to perform. Some examples

  • The first 100 Citizens to bridge over $100 or more get $100 each.
  • The top 40 Citizens who bridge over the most capital get $1000 each

If you wanted to get more creative and add more value to Avalanche, you could begin to add more parameters like:

  • To be eligible, you must also use an Avalanche DEX once and follow them on Twitter

I don’t want to the specifics of this campaign to distract from the macro-level discussion of this post. More, I just wanted to give a high-level overview of how flexible Yield Missions are and how much value we can add to other projects if we use our community properly.

While I used Avalanche here, we could likely start with smaller projects who have very limited community/awareness and drive great quality traffic to meet their specific needs.

Needed Roles

One area I believe we need to get better at is building up our resources and team before launching campaigns like this one. Someone to lead that is 100% focused on growing the potential of yield missions.

To accomplish this, I believe there are two roles needed here (using labels as placeholders)

  • Yield Commander (1)
  • Yield Coordinators (10+)

The Yield Commander is essentially a business development leader that oversees the strategy and quality control of yield missions with other communities. Each Yield Mission going on, the Yield Commander knows about and ensures its feasible and running smoothly.

Yield Coordinators are the individuals who are sources, pitching, and coordinating Yield Missions. Our soldiers on the ground if you will. When a Yield Coordinator finds a project they think has good potential for a Yield Mission Partnership, they present the Yield Commander a proposal.

If the Yield Commander approves, the coordinator is off the the races to turn the idea into a reality.

Essentially, Yield Coordinators help us crowdsource the finding and facilitating of potential projects.

Business Model

We can make the best and biggest Yield Missions in the world, but what is in it for Blockzero Labs and Citizens?

To keep things simple, I am proposing the 10-25% of any yield we earn as a community goes into the Blockzero Vortex. This will ensure that Blockzero has a vested interested in seeing these campaigns run successfully.

While I believe we will likely need to start small with 10k-25k yield missions, if we can continue to grow our community, I don’t see $1M+ yield missions out of the possiblities.

$1M is not a lot to a billion-dollar project. This would bring in roughly $100k-$250k to the vortex for a consistent stream to back our XIO token.


So that is how Blockzero and the Citizens are aligned, but what about the Commander and Coordinators who actually make it all happen?

While I am not sure of this, I would propose that 10% of all yield generated from a yield mission goes to these two individuals.

50% to the commander. 50% to the lead coordinator.

Yield Mission Activated

This post you’re reading is in itself a yield mission! The top five quality responses as chosen by the Blockzero Labs Council will receive 1000 $XIO each.

While we really encourage and prefer responses to be open-ended to anything you would like to focus on, here are a few topics/concepts to jumpstart some conversation:

  • Quality vs. Quantity: How should yield coordinators be selected? Should anyone be able to become a coordinator or should they have to be approved by the Yield Commander?
  • Incentives: Would you increase or decrease the yield that goes into the Vortex? Would you increase/decrease or change the incentives between Coordinators vs. Commanders
  • Naming: Steve in the group mentioned the naming of “Coordinator” and “Commander” may be a little confusing. Do you have better suggestions to name these roles?

Some more open questions:

  • Do you have any suggestions on how to make yield missions more successful?
  • Do you feel yield missions are a viable business model or not?
  • What would you change about the current proposed structure?

Bonus points if you structure a very specific yield mission with a very specific project and present it below!

Last but not least, if you feel you could be a good Yield Commander or Coordinator, please reach out on Discord!


In general any business is an Yield Mission :slight_smile:

I really like this idea… since I always advocate for leveraging awareness and experience through partnerships i agree that this is one of the fastest ways for exponential growth.

  1. I think that choosing one or the other will leave a lot of yield on the table. Between Quality and Quantity I would chose Efficiency.
  2. Anyone should be allowed to propose a YM and given the chance to become a yCoordinator(yCD)… but needs to follow the lead of the yCommander(yCM) which must have the ability to terminate the yCoordinator’s role and even the mission if need be.
  1. without having other details 25% seems ok, at least as a starting point.
  2. i’m all about rewarding the merits so, i think:
    yCoordinators should get 25% for proposing an accepted YM, and 25% for completing it;
    yCommander 30% ;
    and i would like to see a 20% going into a pool which every Xmonths will be equally divided between the first 3or5(depending the total number) most efficient yCoordinators of that period.

i like the names… in line with the spacecraft idea of BZ

by attracting more active participants and by implementing a sort of seniority/meritocracy weight in feedback/rewards of the participants

i like them a lot, specially if are constantly improved.

the name … is not a marketable name “Yield Mission Partnerships”

i will leave this bonus for someone who would like to be a coordinator :blush:

1 Like

Note: I think I answered on a global way, not focusing only on “Partnership” missions.

Yield mission naming
Is the goal of these missions necessary “yield”?
Would go for something more general like “impact mission”.
Because what we are looking for is something that creates something: awareness, yield, innovation…
And that impact should be rated from 1 to 10 by the commander when analyzing the mission. Does he think that would make a big impact or not. Only missions rated 7+ or 8+ should be accepted.

I think he should be paid by BZ with a fix paid + an impact bonus.
If he is paid based on the missions he accepts, he will want to accept a lot, with large budget, that way he will earn big. Its paid and our goals would not be aligned.
So his judgment when rating and supporting missions should be aligned with our goal: the impact.
The fix paid helps him doing its job, and trying to find people to launch projects, etc. The bonus shows him what he needs to reach.

I think there are two different works on such missions and @valeriu-costin mentionned it: people can have idea (and be very poor in making them live), and people could be very good doers (but very low imaginative).
I would split the process in three steps:

  1. Conception : the Mission creator shares its idea and submit it
  2. Rating: the Commander check the proposal and decide whether yes or not it can be done
  3. Assignment: the Commander either gives the leadership to the creator (if this last one wants to and is competent) or post it on a public job-board where people could apply for the leadership job.
    Depending of the task, creator would get 30-50% of the reward and the Leader would get the other part.
  4. Maybe we are missing a point, which is selling the idea to the other community. Is it the job of the commander? Because we could add a job here for some people to convince a community to do a mission with us. These people could get a % of the reward too.

Would you increase or decrease the yield that goes into the Vortex?
Seems fine to me for a start.
We will check it again when things are really launched and successful.
We could even maybe think a launch period where there is no fees taken, to foster the citizen participation into finding ideas and partnerships.

Naming: Steve in the group mentioned the naming of “Coordinator” and “Commander” may be a little confusing. Do you have better suggestions to name these roles?
Yeah, they both look the same.

** Do you have any suggestions on how to make yield missions more successful?**

  • Share clear objectives
  • Align the reward with the objectives
  • Create the right pipeline (for the parthership thing) with ideas => sales => prod (or sales => ideas => prod), with a strong link between ideas and sales. Actually we could have a place where people share the community they belong to and their problems (doing like a briefing), and stratege/creative people could share ideas and create some kind of proposal with 3-4 ideas that could be shared with the other DAO.

** Do you feel yield missions are a viable business model or not?**
I don’t know.
I know we communicate a lot about the community and its strenght.
But I don"t know how powerful (and then how effective) it really is.
What would we be good at?
I was somehow disapointed by what I saw from the UMA and Aquafi missions (would be curious to have your feedback, as I don’t have the whol picture)
I don’t think we would like to become a bounty-like community.
I liked the idea of the studio, with experts, that was mentionned years ago. But not sure it’s the answer either.
I have the feeling that our active community is kind of small, and then hardly activable to have a strong impact. But that is only gut feeling and partial vision, and I might be 100% wrong
You started this post with this question “What value can we actually add to other projects in the industry?”: what was your answer to that?


The business model could absolutely work. There are a ton of projects out there discussing major issues in their Discords with their communities. BZ Yield Missions would give a more systematic approach to helping these projects find the right solutions.

You mentioned needing a coordinator and commander to run the program. In my opinion, there will be a need for much more than that to make this run smoothly.

I see the need for two specific teams on each project.

  1. Acquisition Team
  2. Execution Team

The Commander’s role is to make sure the project gets off the ground smoothly and provide support for the project manager throughout the project. They create the overall systems that help the yield missions program. This position could almost justify a set salary + bonus.

Partner Acquisition Process:

There would be a Scout browsing Discord/Telegram communities looking for issues that BZ can help with. There’s always trouble points being discussed in these groups that we can offer our community of problem solvers to help with.

The Scout comes back to the BZ Discord and shares what they found.

If the community finds an opportunity, the “Commander” will step in and let the potential partner community know that we would like to present some solutions in 24-48 hours.

The BZ community comes up with ideas to pitch and decides on top options.

Proposal writers will draft up overviews of the ideas to present to potential partner in their Discord to start getting support and giving them exactly what they want.

If there is interest from both parties, there would be a nomination process for a project manager that would be voted on and approved by the “Commander” to own the project. This could be the scout, the person with the winning idea or maybe someone good with details and organizing collaborations.

The proposal writers will craft a proposal for the partner DAO to approve.

Human Requirements: Scouts, Commander, Proposal Writers, Mental Miners (Ideas)

10% to the Vortex is easy. Figuring out the rest of the incentive structure is difficult. Maybe part of the process for the project manager and Commander is to budget in a way where the project gets completed and the profits are then split between them.

Here’s a more specific example of how this could play out.

Let’s say a scout sees in the Perpetual Protocol Discord that they are struggling to get new users on the platform. Scout comes back and tells the community.

The Commander goes back and offers our help with using paid ads to get new users. Our community pitches a few ideas for the angle and funnel.

We get approval on the project and the project manager puts together the budget.

Let’s say we get $50k with a goal of getting 500 new users.

  • $5k - Vortex
  • $5k - Acquisitions Team
    ** $1k Scout
    ** $1k Writers
    ** $1.5k Commander
    ** $1.5k Mental Miners
  • $2k - Media Buyers
  • $3k - Creatives
  • $5k - Project Manager
  • $5k - Misc Work
  • $25k - Ads

I can certainly see the potential with this approach. I’ve been mapping out how a marketing agency would work as a DAO and BZ’s yield missions is really close to what I was envisioning.

Let me know if there’s anything I can expand on.


I quite like this idea of outsourcing the partnership building to community members, i had tried to do something like this with another project I was involved in and Flashstake. Ultimately it didnt come to fruition but i would have been delighted had it worked out even without additional reward.

The fact of holding XIO tokens in general is arguably enough incentive for token holders to go out and try and build partnerships and spread awareness for blockzero. I do think there is great upside potential for financially rewarding individuals who can arrange pertnerships with other communities. We do however need to ensue that the quality of projects we partner with is up to scratch. What may seem initially beneficial may be less so if we are allocating valuable resources in the wrong area.

This is all i’ve got here for now, first post in the forum here since we were calling it the XSI so im out of the loop, trying to get back in.

Before submitting any official proposals to other projects, there could be a community discussion and vote where people can share their research.

My primary business is media buying for clients. Avoiding the wrong clients is more important than getting the right ones. There does need to be a process to identify them.

I think this is a great analysis of the involved parties. I´m just not sure about your overall suggestion that we should send out our people to other projects to look for THEIR problems and solve those for them. I don´t think we actually have the capacity on the development / team side to do that.

The way I understand the OP is that we are exploring how to incentivice everyone to introduce new partnerships with other protocols. For me, that means finding synergies between our products and their products or even being innovative about the way to combine different projects (including ours). Solving some random issue of some random project is not a partnership, that´s being a freelance agency. But maybe I misunderstood the OP or your post, just my thoughts here.

In any case, I do like your comment about people having different strengths and therefore the process could be split up into more than 2 roles, as you suggested. Aligning the incentives of all of these parties is important however, so we don´t just produce ideas and contacts but actually get things done. If a partnership proposal doesn´t enter the execution phase, no payouts should be made. I think it´s important to maintain a result-focused approach as having results is all that matters in the end.

The example given in the original post is solving a problem for AVAX.

AVAX would want more people to use their bridge.

We provide the solution to THEIR problem by offering our community rewards to use the bridge.

This is what I meant by finding problems that we have the infrastructure to help solve.

That could come in many different ways.

We basically are a “freelance agency” for these projects, but do it in a way where we can create long-term partnerships.

For example, I have a client that was a freelance client that I’ve worked with for almost 2 years. I now get a % of the revenue because I’m more of a partner than a freelance media buyer to this client.

We need to show other projects the value we can bring by using our systems and human capital to help them grow. If we can’t do that then I don’t understand what we bring to the table for them.

Ok got it, thanks for expanding the thought. So yeah, helping others by helping ourselves is exactly a partnership, seems like we are on the same page now. :smiley:

Quality vs. Quantity: How should yield coordinators be selected? Should anyone be able to become a coordinator or should they have to be approved by the Yield Commander?

I guess everyone should be able to do this, BUT… there should be some sort of verification process. For example, it will be much easier for permanent, active citizens, and they too should be considered first.
I think some verification process needs to be developed - contribution to BZ development, history and time in the project as examples of points.

Incentives: Would you increase or decrease the yield that goes into the Vortex? Would you increase/decrease or change the incentives between Coordinators vs. Commanders

Contribution to Vortex seems to be fair, but as for the division between Coordinators and Commander, it depends on the division of tasks and the amount of work. We don’t want to do corpo here?
Here we have to develop a hypothetical scenario with the division of duties for a given position (as in the job offer). In the event that coordinators do all the dirty work and Comander only approves / rejects, the 50/50 split seems not to be fair to commitment.

Additionally, if the commander gets 50% from each project led by the coordinator, we start to have the first two ponzi pillars here. So I think this 50% may be fair, but collectively for all projects (for example, having 10 coordinators, Commander gets 5% for each project, which gives the mentioned 50%).

Naming: Steve in the group mentioned the naming of “Coordinator” and “Commander” may be a little confusing. Do you have better suggestions to name these roles?

Commander is ok, but what would you say to use Pathfinders instead of Coordinators (retaining the space theme, Pathfinder is a reference to Star Wars)?

Do you have any suggestions on how to make yield missions more successful?

Via vox Populi.

First of all, it is worth implementing a brainstorming dedicated to ideas for yeld missions. Of course, we have a proposale, but they are general and on slightly different principles. I am thinking here of Mental Mining sessions devoted to developing new Yeld Missions attractive from users to users.

Second, BZ is community driven, right? Let’s get these people to the front - thus we will show others that everyone here matters, and not just an “investor”. Do you remember Mental Missions? Memes, content, graphics, videos created by users. Was it somehow used on the official BZ channels? Not. Instead of discussing tokenomes or projects, let’s also give a piece of the scene to citizens. I am sure that such transparency, commitment and openness will bring new people on board.

Do you feel yield missions are a viable business model or not?

Yes, under certain conditions.

Above all, we need a certain structure and strategy, KPIs, goals and frameworks that can be controlled and accounted for.

Lengthy post, but here it comes.

Yield Mission: the name itself is great for internal use, but for the outside partners, it can generate confusion. How about just yMission (pronounce Why? Mission), an impactful partnership program for the short explanation.

Roles & Naming:

  • yMission Committee: the core and council members, this is an honourable non-compensation role that decided to approve or fund a Mission. The title will later be obsolete when there are enough yMission Commanders promoted.
  • yMission Crew: any citizen is eligible to be one. For the crew badge, join a mission or propose a campaign and get approval from the Committee. When the project is approved, the one suggested the partnership would be the acting-captain and for the partner, will be seen as an official Partnership executive of Blockzero Labs
  • yMission Captain: when a mission goes live, the idea’s mastermind would be promoted to Captain or Partnership Lead. They can keep the Captain badge if the campaign is successful or being demoted back to Crew.
  • yMission Commander: successful Captain would be voted and promoted to Commander (conditions would be varied through the development of the program, i.e. 3 successful missions). The role would replace committee members to supervise yMission. This is equivalent to Partnership Manager. How many Commanders at one moment depend on the workload, and the position would have a flexible term & rule: always an odd number, 50-50 old vs new members.


  1. Blockzero Labs Citizens: we want to build a decentralized world, not a communist utopia, so those not involved shouldn’t be rewarded (less than 10% into Vortex).
  2. yMission Commander: the team get 5% of the yield.
  3. yMission Captain: the lead receives 15% of the yield. If he had supporters or extra Crew that helped the Captain bring the mission to succeed, the team would share this 15%.
  4. yMission Crew: all participant Crew get 10% of the yield. This can be rewarded to participated Commander but not the Captain of the mission.

With this structure, we keep a decentralized approach where everyone can participate as a Crew or propose and lead a project to become a Captain. Committee role would be later replaced by Commander. We can even execute this more decentralized by using the DAO contract or voting from all Crew AND/OR Captains for the election process.

This is off topic, but the biggest way to get attention in a noisy market is to have an ever growing group of people talking and hyping projects. Your discord should have new data to be consumed every day. Social media is important to marketing, and I never heard about you but through research. I should have heard about you on youtube or some other similar site. You want to be in sight and in mind. People are looking for great ideas with growth potential, but there are a sea of options right now. GET NOTICED!

1 Like

I would say that Yield Commander can be chosen by the Council following some interviews, etc. and the Yield coordinators should be chosen by him, or by community vote maybe.

The yield seems fine for the vortex and the 50/50 for the coordinator/commander, but since this will add another layer of “missions” on top of what we already have, we should take into consideration the added inflation and complexity. Last thing I want is a repeat of what happened during the last year, where we lost 95%+ value against ETH. Earning more XIO tokens is pointless if they constantly get devalued…

I’m not very creative with names but indeed they look way too similar.

Not a specific suggestion but I would try to simplify them as much as possible, following the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).

They are, but for them to work we need way more involved citizens, cheaper gas fees and more people working to actually make them work on a larger scale. This would involve more inflation tho…

Not much besides what I wrote about.

If we go for the quantity, there’s a high chance a lot will start spamming groups to get something and that wont be in the favour of BlockZero. So there definitely should be a screening process. Maybe a person should contact the commander first before taking it to the project.

Vortex shares should increase with time, as it will increase the overall value of BlockZero. The coordinators and commander shares seems fair, because it will be most of their work.

I like the names, its giving star trek vibe and goes with overall idea of BlockZero.

The idea of yield mission is great and actually implemented in most of the industries. But the great thing about XIO citizens is that you get genuine opinion from people who are from different fields and living in the different parts of the world, so you get a lot of good opinions. I think this should add some weight.

It will be some extra work but instead of putting the mission out in the open, we can out it for vote from citizens.

The idea of spreading our reach outside the boundaries of the ecosystem already created is great and if implemented properly could for sure propel BZ in top 100. Leveraging the community and its engagement is also great.

Before answering the proposed questions there are some things that, i believe, need clarity: there were several occasions in which citizens or community are referenced. What i think needs to be defined honestly, and not necessarily for public eyes, what is this community:

  1. XIO holders or holders of all BZ tokens? if if this what added value could wallet holders bring to the community or other projects.
  2. Discord/ Telegram members? if we consider this what added value does the number of members bring?
  3. Active or involved discord and telegram members? how they can be leveraged for added value?

I am mentioning the three metric because the deeper we go the smaller the “community” ends up being. There are almost 5k XIO holders, maybe, as i don’t know where to check, around 1k discord/telegram users and probably around 100 persons that are active in various degrees. I believe that is important to start from here as this helps the project have the appropriate approach in relationship with potential partners in crypto space and properly define the yield missions.

Now to continue to the questions asked, as they will reference the above stated points:

In this area I see two potential approaches:

  1. The first one is more a “free for all” approach: there will be an open invitation in the bz community/ crypto space to participate in some predefined missions. BZ council has the initial oversight. The best performers receive the invitation to become “Coordinators”. Based on predefined KPIs and on an interview basis the best “Coordinator” is nominated as “Commander” and receives the responsibility to monitor his team.

Downsides: the success depends on two factors: visibility of BZ in space or the actual number of “active citizens”. The lower the visibility and the lower the number of actives the higher the chance of not obtaining desired results.

  1. Second approach is the classical one: search for and hire a specialist to coordinate the project: they think of the strategy for the missions, define mission types and establish the number of members needed in their team and the recruitment and onboarding process.

Downsides: takes time and resources before even starting any mission.

I see “quality vs quantity” as a recurrent theme in BZ. When a critical mass is present one can become picky about it as one can find multiple viable options. When that critical mass is missing there might be nothing to choose from. It might be my broken opinion but I believe we have not reached critical mass yet and discussions about quality vs quantity in some instances are redundant. In this case maybe it would be a good idea to define the accepted level of quality regardless of the quantity involved. Let all interested parties participate and the ones that shine are chosen as coordinators or commanders.

This also dabs in the question of what I would to to make missions more successful: When defining the mission I would neither increase nor decrease. I would define KPIs and based on reaching those KPIs a specific percentage goes to vortex. I will use the avax example as reference:

  • Project: Avalanche
  • Objective: Use their bridge
  • Budget based on thresholds: $50k/100k/200k AVAX
  • Goal based on thresholds: $1M/2M/4M Assets through bridge
  • Timeline: Two Weeks

Commander+team: 5% if they reach the first stage / 7,5% for second / 15% for third
Vortex distribution: this needs some more developement.

How is that vested interest being materialized if there are persons responsible of the missions?
If it is about oversight and resource allocation (here i include know how and support as well) then, my opinion, is that the percentages going into vortex should be proportional with the resources invested by BZ in the success of the mission. The more resources the higher the percentage, the lower the resources the lower the percentage.
In the beginning 25%-30% goes to vortex as BZ might have to be involved a lot in the process. However a self sustaining team that constantly delivers successful missions without the need of BZ could benefit of a higher portion of the yield for themselves and a lower percentage for vortex.

Proposed starting scenario:
Yield Beginner Team benefits: 5%-10%
Vortex: 25%-30%

Proposed high efficiency scenario:
Yield Proficient Team benefits: 15%-20%
Vortex: 10%-15%

I agree that they are confusing: the commander can also coordinate :slight_smile:
If we keep the commander role we might go with scouts or vanguards

My 2 cents that could impact the success of missions:

  1. Properly adjusted to what BZ can offer: the wallets/ social planform members/active members/ know how/ expertise
  2. The more simple they are designed the more chances of success. I come back to avax example: the first two conditions to are quite clear and easy to understand in order for people to become engaged. When the creative part comes is it starts getting complicated as it is not clear what does bridging have to do with using a dex or twitter following.
  3. I would see this missions as a funnel that can be smartly used to send value and to receive value. When addressing projects much larger than ours there we might want to turn the funnel around in order for us benefit from the amplified message. If we are targeting smaller projects then we might be able to amplify some areas for them.

I think they might be viable if BZs position, size and role in the universe are correctly presented.
Coming back to the community story: 5k is a great achievement from a startup point of view. We have managed to get close to that level one year ago. This is a story of determined person whose dream was to create something and managed to do it brilliantly.

Seen from the perspective of another project that needs value added we might need to accept the limitations we are faced with: 5k wallets, 1k members on social platforms, 100 involved and active persons. I am not trying to imply the project is doing bad or good. This is just how it is at this point and it needs to clearly define what is that drop of added value it can add to the crypto space and which projects need that drop we have to offer.

Rough mission idea for fun:

  1. Name: Scouting party
  2. Objectives: Create a 50K yield mission
  3. Goal: 5 yield missions active and running
  4. Budget: 25k (5k per mission) to be provided by BZ in the beginning and recovered from the mission yield after completion
  5. Reward: First finalized mission receives 100% of the remaining yield, next 2 receive 50%, and the next 2 25%

Quality vs. Quantity: How should yield coordinators be selected? Should anyone be able to become a coordinator or should they have to be approved by the Yield Commander?

  • I think yield coordinators should definitely be approved because they are kind of the face of Blockzero labs for other projects but everyone should have a chance at it. Most likely Yield commander could make the final decision and the selection could be based on some inquiry. Also, it would be really beneficial if they had some social influence already to promote yield missions for example.

Incentives: Would you increase or decrease the yield that goes into the Vortex? Would you increase/decrease or change the incentives between Coordinators vs. Commanders

  • I think 25% seems fine to be the amount that goes to Vortex because it helps the ecosystem as a whole to grow.

  • I think (Coordinators) 60/40 (Commander) would be a little bit better because then the coordinators are a little bit more incentivized because 40% of the 10% of all the yield should be enough for the commander.

Naming: Steve in the group mentioned the naming of “Coordinator” and “Commander” may be a little confusing. Do you have better suggestions to name these roles?

  • I think the names aren’t really confusing, atleast to me. But if I had to give some ideas then: Yield Commander - Yield Scout and by trying to think of better names I can’t really think of anything clearer than scout and commander.

Do you have any suggestions on how to make yield missions more successful?

  • I think the key word here is simplicity. Yield missions must be really easy to understand for the average Joe and the rewards must be appealing. Maybe some tutorials would help and definitely some promos.

Do you feel yield missions are a viable business model or not?

  • I think it is a viable business model since it is possible to make money with it and that’s what the aim of a business essentially is.

What would you change about the current proposed structure?

  • Can’t really think of any changes to add to the idea of Yield missions at the moment.

This topic was automatically closed after 32 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.