I like the general direction of this proposal, but there are a few things that seem off in terms of the new cred amounts.
Main thing would be that its heavily weighting to contributors that joined after we established props / didathing, so older contributors are disadvantaged since those channels didn’t always exist. I think this is a good situation where time scoped weight config would be really valuable (i.e. these weight changes only apply to activity in the last 6 months instead of changing all the historical cred as well). @Beanow’s cred score especially stands out to me as being too low relative to cred scores of newer contributors.
I feel like we would need to dig through where and how the cred is actually flowing to make a proper informed decision about this as a community because it definitely feels like it needs some more fine tuning to iron out some inconsistencies.
In addition, I think this could also introduce a lot of gaming (intentional or unintentional) since the cred flows are now primary dictated by reactions on discord / humans and therefore starts heading much closer to Nosedive / popularity contest territory where the social dynamics and people’s personalities start to affect cred scores and crediquitte becomes extremely important but also extra awkward with the current additive way of calculating cred based on reactions.
IMO our current method of minting more cred as more emoji reactions come in isn’t ideal and is something we should work on refining if we want to have high signal / low noise cred flows. Right now I always have to play this internal mind game to see if I should react to something or not based on how many reactions it already has since I don’t want it to get over-credited even though I like the contribution. I’ve seen even in MetaGame that contributions that invoke more emotions often get a lot more reactions than ones that are more mundane but still super valuable (e.g. someone making a really funny meme or charismatic post that hypes people up vs someone who did the grunt work of coordinating dozens of people or cleaning up backlog of old issues / forum posts, etc). There’s also the bias of people adding reactions with the same emojis as the previous person who reacted.
@blueridger and I were discussing an alternative approach where instead of counting the amount of reactions, we have a way for people to indicate how much they think that contribution is worth and the resulting weight would be the “mean” instead of the “sum”. For example, we could have a bot that automatically adds 4 reactions to every post in props/didathing that represents “common (1)”, “rare (3)” “epic (5)” and “legendary (8)” contributions and people just react with the one they think applies and the resulting weight would just be the average of the individual reaction weights. I think something like this would greatly increase the signal/noise ratio for props/didathing channels and is likely closer to what I envision weighting nodes in the creditor to look like.
Also, this seems to be inflating the total cred a lot as well, would be nice to understand what the implications of that are, if any. There’s the extra dynamic with grain payouts as well with the Recent policy which is already favouring more recent contributors, so shifting the cred heavily in favour of recent contributors compounds that effect. I would be interested in seeing what projected grain payouts would look like with these new cred scores and if we would want to adjust the distribution strategy there as well.