# Write the Initiatives Plugin

**URL:** <https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/write-the-initiatives-plugin/269>\
**Category:** Initiatives\
**Tags:** 🏗️in-progress\
**Created:** [October 6, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/write-the-initiatives-plugin/269 "2019-10-06T02:41:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![decentralion](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/decentralion/32/7_2.png) [@decentralion](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/decentralion)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/write-the-initiatives-plugin/269/6 "2019-10-18T15:23:08Z")

</div>

> [@Beanow](#):
>
> Does that seem right?

Yep, that seems right.

> [@Beanow](#):
>
> Currently I think we should leave initiatives untouched when it comes to it being a discourse topic. However it should create a new node (assuming it’s correctly formatted) “Initiative” which has an edge to the topic it’s based on (maybe with edge weight: 0)

That makes sense to me. We could think of the initiative topic itself as being a ‘contribution’ towards the initiative, with a contribution edge.

> [@Beanow](#):
>
> Right now the simplest approach I can think of, is to use the wiki aspect to track this state, and only implement flowing cred in retrospect. So an initiative that’s not yet completed, could create nodes and edges, but they’re all 0 weight. Once it’s been completed, it will act as a seed to flow it’s bounty.

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).

> [@Beanow](#):
>
> So perhaps a fell short champion may lose some cred by flowing it to the initiative node.

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](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/about-champions-and-heroes/291/7).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/write-the-initiatives-plugin/269)._