Yep, that seems right.
That makes sense to me. We could think of the initiative topic itself as being a ‘contribution’ towards the initiative, with a contribution edge.
Yeah, I agree re: using the wiki to track the state. It’s also good as it allows retroactive addition of more contributions to the initiative (whether b.c. they were overlooked initially, or because the initiative wound up needing more work).
I don’t think the edges should be zero weight; an initiative can flow some cred before it is completed. However, it won’t mint any new cred until it’s completed. For example, if I reference an initiative, I flow some cred to it; its reasonable that the cred then flows to people who have been working on the initiative so far. Once the initiative is finished, then a lot more cred is minted, and seeded at the initiative (in current terminology, the initiative’s node weight increases from 0 to, say, 100).
I caution against thinking of cred this way. Depending on the topology of the graph, creating a new edge from the champion to the initiative node could result in the champion’s cred decreasing or increasing. For example, suppose all of the champion’s existing edges point to flow cred to a “black hole” node called Foo. None of that cred recycles back to the champion. Then if the champion creates a new edge pointing to the initiative, since the champion is connected to the initiative, some of that cred recycles back to the champion, which means the champion’s cred increases.
I propose we start with the simplest system: all the edges have fixed type-level weights (like other edges in the graph). If a champion fails, they get removed from the wiki post (possibly replaced by someone else). So that will handle the “absentee” or “failed” champion–they just lose champion status. We can leave out any penalties for failed champions, and handle that when we implement grain staking for champions.