Community Review Recap - numbersprotocol/community-support GitHub Wiki

Community Review Recap

#8 Pre-discussion: 7th NumbersDAO voting topic community review

# of Comments	18
# of Participants	17
Community Member with most Comments	daredevil88716

Topics Covered:

Archiving Controversial Events Happenings Around The World and Grant Funding

Currently, Numbers Archive has been steering clear of controversial topics to maintain neutrality and avoid any political stance that may accompany them. This community review discusses the possibility of Numbers Archive to take on more diverse and possibly controversial events in order to enhance more participation, while still striving to maintain neutrality.

Pros of the proposal

Increased Engagement: Controversial topics often drive higher engagement, leading to more active community discussions and content creation.
Diverse Perspectives: This initiative can position Numbers as a platform for a wide spectrum of views, attracting users from various backgrounds.
Media Attention: The bold move to archive controversial content could garner media interest, increasing visibility and user acquisition.
Community Growth: Grants for archiving such content can incentivize new and existing users to contribute, fostering community growth.

Cons of the proposal

Content Moderation: Ensuring the content aligns with legal standards and community guidelines will be crucial.
Reputational Risk: Handling sensitive or controversial topics may pose reputational risks if not managed properly.
Polarization: There's a potential for increased polarization within the community over differing viewpoints.
Resource Allocation: Efficient allocation and management of grants will be necessary to ensure the success of this initiative.

Highlighted view from the community

"Increased user engagement with controversial topics is a great point but How will Numbers ensure efficient grant allocation for controversial content?" - daredevil8871

"For the grants, we should have transparent criteria for evaluating proposals based on things like the event's significance, diversity of perspectives, and quality. Community voting could be one way to allocate grants in a decentralized way. My main concern would be the potential for backlash or reputation risks if this isn't handled carefully. So a solid crisis communications plan is key. But even more importantly, fostering an environment of respectful dialogue where different views can be explored productively." - TylerDylan

"What are the measures put in place to make it sustainable and free of political control? I'll suggest we leave out setting grants" - emmerson121

"To mitigate risks, it's crucial to establish strict criteria for acceptable controversial proposals. These guidelines would ensure content management and reduce the potential for reputational damage. We can begin with a well-defined set of standards and gradually expand or revise them as the project evolves." - doanthekhiem

"Diving into controversial stuff could bring lots of new folks to Numbers Protocol. Grants for community contributions sound cool too. But, gotta keep things in check. Clear rules, a team checking things before saving them, and a fair way to appeal rejections would keep things respectful. When handing out grants, let's keep it fair with easy-to-understand rules about the event's importance and having different points of view." - Tukymakesmusic

Response from Numbers Protocol

Thank you all for your thoughtful and insightful contributions during our pre-discussion on this proposal. We deeply appreciate your thoughts, there are so many amazing comments and insights from the community, we apologize for being unable to highlight all of it. It's encouraging to see such active participation and diverse viewpoints from our community members.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and here’s our observations from the discussion:

Majority of the community agreed on this proposal, considering the many positive outcomes this proposal could bring.
Many of the community members voiced questions and concerns about the grant funding, some even suggested skipping it altogether.
A significant portion of the feedback talks about establishing strict criteria for the proposed controversial archive, and requested more thoughts on the measure to put in place in order to make it free of political stance.

It is important to us (Numbers team) that we build the project in collaboration with the community so we appreciate the feedback we received for this topic.

Regarding grant funding

To ensure grants are allocated effectively and used prudently, we require applicants to submit a clear budget outline, emphasizing documentation, data collection, and local support expenses. This policy is designed to direct funds towards essential project activities like content gathering and technical assistance, excluding personal stipends to ensure the grant enhances project development. Acceptable expenses may include essential reporting needs, such as travel and fees for local support (translators, drivers), ensuring a transparent and focused allocation of funds. To further ensure the responsible use of funds, the Numbers Protocol is considering dividing grant distribution into different phases, with the specifics to be discussed further. This approach aims to encourage thorough planning and execution of projects, guaranteeing that grants are directed to projects genuinely dedicated to documenting diverse historical narratives effectively and responsibly.

Regarding the topic event selection criteria and measures to put in place

The selection criteria will be prioritizing events that hold significant historical importance or have had a notable impact on society. We’ll also implement a transparent and objective selection process for deciding which controversial events to archive, possibly involving several experts on the topic. Selected archived content then will be presented from multiple perspectives. This could involve including diverse sources, viewpoints, and narratives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the event without favoring any particular political stance.

Following the community review, the team has made adjustments to the voting topic as below.

Subject: Should Numbers open for controversial archive proposals from the community, and set grants for it?
Agree: I want Numbers to open for controversial archive proposals from the community and set grants for it.
Disagree: I want Numbers to open for controversial archive proposals but not provide grants for it to make it sustainable and free of political control.

The 7th meeting and voting session of the Numbers DAO will take place from April 23th to April 25th, 2024.

#7 Pre-discussion: 6th NumbersDAO voting topic community review

# of Community Member's Comments	11
# of Participants	11

Topics Covered:

Redirect Unsuccessful DAO Proposal Stakes to the Treasury

Under the current system, members are required to stake 5,000 NUM when submitting a proposal. If the proposal is successful, these NUMs are returned; however, if the proposal fails, the NUMs are burnt. Proposal : Instead of burning the 5,000 NUM tokens staked for unsuccessful proposals, we should redirect these tokens to the DAO’s treasury.

Pros of the proposal

Sustainable Growth : Replenishing the treasury with these tokens can contribute to the long-term sustainability and growth of the DAO. 5,000 NUM may not seem much for some people, but with growing interest and members of the Numbers DAO, we could expect to see more proposals being submitted.
Member Engagement : Reducing the risk associated with submitting proposals can lead to a more engaged and active community.
Economic Efficiency & Financial Strengthening of the DAO : This approach is economically efficient as it recycles tokens within the ecosystem instead of eliminating them. The additional tokens in the treasury can provide more funding for future projects, grants, or community initiatives.

Cons of the proposal

Risk of Low-Quality Proposals : If there's less at stake for individuals submitting proposals, it could potentially lead to an increase in proposals that are not well-thought-out or are not in the best interest of the DAO.
Treasury Management : The increased flow of tokens into the treasury will require more details to the treasury management and decision-making process.

Highlighted view from the community

"Redirecting unsuccessful DAO proposal stakes to the Treasury ensures a sustainable and efficient allocation of resources, maximizing the collective benefit for the community's growth and development, so I support it 👍" - Bikso1

"I prefer the normal burning since we have already accustomed to that pattern, although change is constant but my stand remains 👍" - Westpaiid

"Considering the pros which outweighs the cons, I think it will be more beneficial to implement Redirect Unsuccessful DAO Proposal Stakes to the Treasury, this will also lead to more idea and contributions from the community. However, critical measures should be taken into considerations before implementation." - fredlex

"Channeling unfulfilled DAO proposal stakes into the Treasury ensures a resilient distribution of resources to foster community expansion. I advocate for this approach to h shared advantages. Nevertheless, I remain steadfast in endorsing the conventional burning method, honoring our familiarity with it amid the perpetual evolution of circumstances." - Carina470

"The amount that will be burned should never be put into use. The deflationary structure must be preserved. In a bull market, any increase in circulation will decrease the price. Even if the burn amount is to be used, it can only be used once for listing on an exchange such as Binance by not burning the burn amount in 1 quarter." - ParamedicArt

Response from Numbers Protocol

Thank you all for your thoughtful and insightful contributions during our pre-discussion on the proposal to redirect unsuccessful DAO proposal stakes to the treasury. It's encouraging to see such active participation and diverse viewpoints from our community members.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and noticed a mix of opinions. There are valid arguments on both sides of the proposal, highlighting the complexity and importance of the decision we face. Observations from the Discussion:

Pros and Cons Acknowledged: Many of you have rightly pointed out the pros and cons of the proposal. This reflects a deep understanding of the implications for our DAO's sustainability, member engagement, and the potential risks involved.
Neutral Stance: A significant portion of the feedback seems to lean towards a neutral stance, indicating that while there are potential benefits to the proposal, there are also legitimate concerns that cannot be overlooked.

Given the nature of the feedback, which is somewhat balanced with a tendency towards neutrality, we believe the best course of action is to proceed with the formal DAO voting process. This democratic approach ensures that every member's voice is heard and that the decision reflects the collective will of our community.

Following the community review, the team has made adjustments to the voting topic as below.

Subject: Should Numbers redirect unsuccessful DAO proposal stakes to the treasury?
Agree: I want Numbers to redirect unsuccessful DAO proposal stakes to the treasury.
Disagree: I would like to keep the current process (unsuccessful DAO proposal stakes to be burned).

The 6th meeting and voting session of the Numbers DAO will take place from January 24th to January 26th, 2024.

#6 Migration of Liquidity to PancakeSwap V3

# of Community Member's Comments	8
# of Participants	7
Community Member with most Comments	kai0908

Topics Covered:

Fragmented Liquidity

Recently there has been concern about the high amount of impact by unexpected market condition to NUM token. After several discussion with advisors and expert in the related field, Numbers team, along with the community reviewed the plan to consolidate all DEX Liquidity to PancakeSwap V3.

Currently NUM is available in both UniSwap(ERC-20) and PancakeSwap V2 (BEP-20), this resulted in fragmented liquidity in both chain and platforms. By consolidating the liquidity of both platform into PancakeSwap V3, it's expected to lessen the impact of unexpected market, while also offering several advantages.

"This strategic shift seems well-considered given the changing market conditions. Focusing liquidity on the BNB Chain, where the community holdings are concentrated, can potentially benefit the ecosystem. It's important to adapt to the evolving crypto landscape for long-term success." - Westpaiid

"This is notably a positive advancement and as always having the interest of the community at hand. Migration of liquidity to pancake swap V3 will definitely have a positive impact in the stability of the $NUM token giving the community an easy access to the token. The merits using the decentralised exchange (Dex) Pancake swap V3 are really welcoming and I hope the team Carry out proper risk assessment as well before executing the migration plan.." - fredlex

The need of adding Mainnet NUM to another DEX

"That's would be a great idea, I totally agree with your decision. Besides, I am concerning about the liquidity on Number Mainet as it is quite difficult to trade NUM tokens on its native blockchain. I hope Team wiil take a look into this situation and have a plan." - kai0908

"I prefer using DEXes as it's quite complicated to trade on CEXes. I used to trade mainet NUM on XY Finance but it was really bad. I hope Number Mainet will be supported on some popular DEXes like Pancakeswap or Uniswap, etc." - kai0908

"I find DEXs much more user-friendly than CEXs. My past NUM trading on XY Finance left a lot to be desired. Hoping that Number Mainet can soon join popular DEXs like Pancakeswap or Uniswap for a smoother experience!" - Karen5-hub

Response from Numbers Protocol

It is important to us (Numbers team) that we build the project in collaboration with the community so we appreciate the feedback we received for this topic. Migration of Liquidity is not an easy decision, and we are honored to have the community's insightful feedback for it.

Regarding Fragmented Liquidity

Originally we established liquidity on both Ethereum and BNB Chain to build a healthy ecosystem for NUM. After recent observation and analysis, we notice that while the majority of Liquidity Providers are settled on Ethereum Chain, most of our community holdings are concentrated on BNB Chain. In response to that we believe that this is a good time to consolidate our liquidity into a single DEX on the BNB Chain. To further aid with a seamless decentralized trading environment, we plan to use NUM-USDT pairing for PancakeSwap V3 due to the popularity of Tether(USDT) as a stablecoin.

Regarding The need of adding Mainnet NUM to another DEX

"Hi Kai, thanks for your input. For now you can trade Mainnet NUM on Gate.io and Lbank. We are exploring some other option too, we'll announce to the community when we have the concrete date, please don't worry." - Steffdarz

The timeline for this migration is expected to happen on ~~Mid November 2023~~ Mid December 2023, we will set up a announcement in the near future with more details on this decision.

#5 Pre-discussion: 5th NumbersDAO voting topic community review (Aug 14 - Aug 28, 2023)

# of Community Member's Comments	6
# of Participants	6

Topics Covered:

Token Allocations

The Numbers community recently reviewed the current token allocation of Numbers Protocol and the possibility of adjusting some of the allocated tokens of Teams & Advisors into the ecosystem. This was initiated to stimulate discussion around the pros and cons of such a move.

Current token allocation : 17.5% Tokens for the Team & Advisors 22.8% Tokens for the Ecosystem

Proposed token allocation : 15.0% Tokens for the Team & Advisors 25.3% Tokens for the Ecosystem

Advantages of such a move include a more decentralized governance structure, expanded network of users, developer and investors, more resilient ecosystem, and improved liquidity. The DAO member acknowledges the potential of drawing a larger user base & developers, and increased investor’s interest in the project.

On the downside, there are several potential issues following this implementation such as negative market perceptions, and regulatory concerns. Some DAO members also voiced concern such as reduced motivation from the team & advisors or possibly resentment / dissatisfaction on the decision, and potential technical challenge to ensure the distributed token is actively leveraged for the project’s growth.

While the decision carries weighty implications, Numbers Protocol has maintained neutrality, encouraging open dialogue and shared perspectives among stakeholders. The organization believes in the power of community consensus and is eager to see how this critical decision unfolds. The organization is committed to making strides toward a more decentralized future, regardless of the decision's outcome.

Following the community review, the team has made adjustments to the voting topic as below.

Subject: Should Numbers allocate a portion of Team Token to the Ecosystem?
Agree: I want Numbers to allocate 2.5% of Team & advisor's token to the ecosystem.
Disagree: I would like to keep the current token allocation.

The 5th meeting and voting session of the Numbers DAO will take place from ~~September 18th to September 20th, 2023.~~ To better prepare the Numbers DAO voting, we will postpone the voting period from October 4th to 6th,2023.

Community Review Recap

#4 Pre-discussion: 4 NumbersDAO voting topic community review (Jun 5 - June 20, 2023)

# of Comments	88
# of Participants	48
Community Member with most Comments	Mahabirgope

Topics Covered:

Decentralizing the validator set

The Numbers community recently reviewed the possibility of opening up the validator set and implementing a delegated proof-of-stake (PoS) system. This was initiated to stimulate discussion around the pros and cons of such a move.

Advantages cited include alignment with Numbers Protocol's core values of community and decentralization, enhanced utility for the NUM token, and increased network robustness. It would enable NUM stakers to delegate their stakes, share in validation rewards, and bolster the network's resilience against malicious attacks. It could also attract more community members interested in validating the Numbers Blockchain and add to the potential rewards pool.

On the downside, critics pointed to potential issues, such as the risk of introducing malicious actors into the ecosystem and the irreversible nature of the decision. Implementing such a change would require significant technical resources, possibly straining the Numbers Protocol's revenues. Also, running a validator requires considerable technical expertise and a substantial stake in NUM, which could pose a barrier to some community members.

In essence, the community discussion around opening up the validator set and implementing delegated PoS has triggered a critical evaluation of the Numbers Protocol's decentralization approach and network resilience. The decision, ultimately, will significantly shape the Numbers Protocol's path forward.

Following the community review, the team has made adjustments to the voting topic as below.

Subject: Should Numbers network migrate gradually from permissioned PoS to permissionless PoS with delegation support?
Agree: I want the Numbers network to be permissionless with delegation support after 12 months. If the team requires additional time after 12 months, they will share the migration status and technical considerations with the community.
Disagree: I prefer the Numbers network to remain permission PoS. The team will review this topic 12 months later.

The fourth meeting and voting session of the Numbers DAO will take place from June 27th to June 29th, 2023.

Community Review Recap

#3 Pre-discussion: 3rd NumbersDAO voting topic community review (Feb 15 - Mar 6, 2023)

# of Comments	64
# of Participants	53
Community Member with most Comments	PlzDontScamInvestors

Topics Covered:

Burning mechanism Formula

“The formula needs to be changed so that (minimum) 20 times more tokens will burn or else the project will never recover. An investor (with a normal IQ) gives a lot of credit to this pattern. Change the formula radically and people will understand that you will give them a minimum of respect. At the moment it is quite the opposite. Sorry for these words but after raising this issue dozens of times in the telegram my patience, and that of many others, has reached its limits. I hope that the necessary will be done as soon as possible .People invest in a project because they like the technology but ESPECIALLY because they think they can make money doing it. If you continue to destroy the value of the token there will never be new investors who will see a red flag. It's not completely too late.” – PlzDontScamInvestors

“Ever since the first unlock, NUM has minted a total of 220,623,225 tokens (Not including TGE), and burn a total of 6,683,956 tokens. The ratio here is around 3% burn to mint. If we compare it with another coin like, let's say AVAX : Over the same period with NUM (Jan 2022 - Jan 2023), 70,913,410 has been minted, with a total burn of 1,515,645 within the same period. That's 2.1% ratio of burn to mint. I believe NUM's tokenomic is quite competitive in that respect.

If NUM burn 20 times more tokens, we'll get 220,623,225 to 133,679,120, with the ratio of 60.6%. As with over inflation, over deflation is also not healthy for any tokenomics in the long run.However I do agree NUM need to do something extra in order to attract more potential investors - holders - users.

With the current burn mechanism, NUM can only burn more if :

There is more users There is more asset registration Both are linked to each other, and there's not much the team could do about that other than spend more budget on marketing.” – Steffdarz

Increase the adoption of NUM products

“For me am not that aware of burning criteria will be best for NUM eco system, as I am a holder and user of NUM network, what I understand that if NUM can attract more users using the services what NUM provide that will increase collecting fees and transactions that will effect and increase token burn, that will effect the price chart in good way which will attract the holders, that will lead for better price performance. So what I understand that we need to increase users, will increase the burning whatever the formula is, so if we look to the top of the pyramid of solving any issue is the users, cuz the main burning mechanism is the fees of the users actions, so good burning needs a lot of users, and we can help that but finding more ways to increase the adoption of NUM products and a huge marketing strategy in all platforms and ways to increase users which will effect positively on NUM price chart which will attract more investors and holders of the main NUM token.” – Cryptoguy86

“In general, the project needs to focus on driving adoption via publicity/marketing and onboarding more users to the ecosystem to engender growth and create an enabling environment to apply creative strategies like the transaction-based token burn, which I am curious to see personally in the long run.”– buchii9

DAO Spirit of Numbers Protocol: Transparency

“The fact that this mechanism is transparent and foreseeable is something I enjoy. Because the network has established explicit rules for when and how tokens will be burnt, users and investors may become more trusting of it. As a result of these predictable variations in supply, dramatic declines in token value may be avoided.” – cryptomate7863

“I appreciate the transparency and openness of the Numbers Protocol team in discussing the NUM burning mechanism with us. It's great to see that the team is open to feedback and suggestions from the community on how to improve the burn program.” – letsdrivethefuture

A more flexible, scalable mechanism? Transaction based burning

“The token burning mechanism described in the overview appears to be well thought out and aligned with the goals of Numbers Protocol. The deflationary nature of the NUM token through burning is a good way to incentivize holding and using the token. The proposed mechanism of burning a percentage of the value generated by registered assets is also aligned with the growth of the platform. However, the concerns raised about potentially burning tokens too quickly due to the launch of Numbers Mainnet and low transaction fees is valid. It may be worthwhile to consider a transaction fee-based burn mechanism as an alternative or complementary approach. The transaction fee-based burn mechanism has the benefit of being flexible and scalable as new use cases for the NUM token are discovered.” – daredevil8871

“Burning a token is the process that effectively takes tokens out of circulation, reducing the total supply of that coin and in most cases increasing demand. This is done to maintain the value of a cryptocurrency. For me the Token Burn is essential because it aims at creating a deflationary token which is good for the tokenomics. Deflation is when the prices of goods and services decrease across the entire economy, increasing the purchasing power of consumers. Since $NUM is here to stay, the Token Burn is very essential.

There is no need to go with the asset based registration burn mechanism, let's stick with the traditional transaction fee burn since it is more flexible than the asset based registration and it has been tried severally. Basically transactions are done almost every time such as: Registration of assets, new Commit , Minted Numbers NFT, $NUM transfer _ all these are transactions on the mainnet. This is more like killing two birds with a stone instead of just going with the Asset based registration mechanism.” – Sharie1996

Additional incentives for increasing the value of $NUM and the users of $NUM Holder

“In addition to these methods, introducing staking and liquidity pools can also help increase the value of NUM. Staking allows people to earn rewards for holding and supporting the network, while liquidity pools provide a way for people to earn rewards for providing liquidity to the network.” – Metaq95

“As there is campaigns to motivate the users to post the photos, we have to motivate the users to buy the NFTs from different users to benefit from the transaction and fees too both ways, by events or and campaigns. Because as me normal user I have no reason to buy any other photo and waste my NUM rather to collect them.” – Cryptoguy86

Response from Numbers Protocol

It is important to us (Numbers team) that we build the project in collaboration with the community so we appreciate the feedback we received for our 3rd NumbersDAO voting topic community review. NUM burning mechanism might be a challenging topic for most community members, but we’re more than happy and honored to have you all try your best to understand it and give insightful feedback. It is each of you being the backbone of the spirit of making Numbers a community-driven DAO project.

Regarding Burning mechanism Formula and increase the adoption of NUM products

“I agree with @PlzDontScamInvestors that the burning mechanism should be revisited. That's why we are here to discuss this topic. However, I also agree with @Cryptoguy86 that users and long-term transactions are key to the success of the project. If we expect Web3 to remain the same size as it is today, then burning a lot of tokens might be necessary. However, if we acknowledge that Web3 is still in its early stages (or even yet to be adopted by the general public since none of my friends and family are using Web3 products), as @Steffdarz mentioned, over-burning will likely hurt the project in the long run. To me, it is important to consider both short-term and long-term interests of the project so that we can create the best values for the investors and users.” – tammyyang

“@PlzDontScamInvestors Thanks for sharing your honest opinions. From your comments it sounds like you are a passionate investor of NUM. The Numbers Protocol team appreciate your comments and your concerns. The purpose of having this community review is to leverage community members such as yourself and provide your thoughts and experiences to better improve the NUM project. In your comment you mentioned changing the formula. If you can share how you would like the formula to change and with reasoning that would be very helpful and facilitate discussion. For example, if there is another project that does token burning in a way that you find interesting and effective, feel free to share and reference. It is a great starting point for other community members to jump in and share their thoughts!” – ethanwu155

Regarding DAO Spirit of Numbers Protocol: Transparency

“We have a lot of capable members at Numbers Protocol but the reality is we cannot know everything. That is why we subscribe to community and open source development. By leveraging the greater community (which includes capable members such as yourself and others) we can build a more effective project!”– ethanwu155

Regarding a more flexible, scalable mechanism? Transaction based burning

“Part of the reason why we are having this community review and upcoming NumbersDAO vote is because we believe that transaction base burning can be more flexible and scalable. This is made possible because of the introduction to our Numbers Mainnet. We no longer need to solely rely on a metric like asset registration to determine token burning because we have our Mainnet facilitating transactions. Transactions are more flexible because token burnings can occur in instances of asset registration, new commits (updates to asset), NFT minting, NUM transfer and much more. In terms of scalability, it really depends on the percentage of tokens we plan on burning. We can opt to burn 100% transaction fees in addition to an adjustable metric in order to make up for the rate of NUM token inflation. Having an adjustable metric will allow easier control of token burn rate if it is necessary.” – ethanwu155

Regarding additional incentives for increasing the value of $NUM and the users of $NUM Holder

“The team is working hard to build Numbers Protocol and provide more utility and value for $NUM. Prior to our mainnet launching we were hampered by the fact that $NUM’s value was tied largely to the number of assets registered to the network. With mainnet launching, it opens many doors for us. Just this month we launched our pay as you go API service powered with $NUM. We will continue to work on creating new partnerships and together with existing partners to onboard Numbers Network and give our users access to interesting and useful network actions. We will also put greater emphasis on growing our developer community with the hopes of having developers build interesting applications with our protocol. We will do this on top of our continued work on our primary products Capture App and Numbers Search Engine. There is a lot of work but we think the prospect of Numbers Protocol and $NUM is an upward one. We hope you agree and can join us!” – ethanwu155

Community Review Recap

#2 Governance Ver. 2.0 - Numbers DAO voting rule (Jul 8 - Jul 18, 2022)

Statistics

# of Comments	32
# of Participants	18
Community Member with most Comments	Cryptoguy86

Summary of Proposal and Proposed Timeline

Proposal Index	Proposal	DAO Proposal Required?	2022 Q3/Q4	2023 Q1/Q2	2023 Q3/Q4
CV-002-A	Create more visual content	N	v
CV-002-B	Provide additional perks for CAPTCH-A owners	Y		v
CV-002-C	Vesting instead of burning the proposal deposit if not passed	Y		v
CV-002-D	Reward the member whose proposal is passed	Y		v
CV-002-E	Stake to win Pebble	Y			v
CV-002-F	Stake to acquire DAO power	Y			v
CV-002-G	Team token/CAPTCH-A rules and distribution update	Y	v

Topics Covered:

Pebble CAPTCH-A

“Second thing, to get pebble it's must to burn 2000 NUM, but I feel it's not worth to burn 2000 NUM and to get only to attend the meeting, and other one will keep the 2000 NUM and wait for the market to go up and will gain the new price of the market and cash it out with 10X for example. So pebble has to have different benefits plus governance meeting.” – Crytoguy86 (CV-002-E)

“Owning Pebble is not very incentive, especially that it can be acquired only by burning tokens but it gives no voting power. There could be some more perks encouraging ppl to acquire it. Maybe there could be some time limited campaigns allowing to acquire Pebble also by staking not by burning tokens.” – AniaBeg (CV-002-E)

Burning $NUM to vote

“I believe an additional method of increasing the voting power of the CAPTCH-A NFT which can be explored is staking NUM for a longer period to have more voting rights or voting power if you are a CAPTCH-A holder. For example, the method of voting requires the burning of $NUM tokens (i.e., 1 $NUM = 1 vote power, 9 $NUM = 3 vote power). Another additional option which can be explored is to vote by staking NUM for a period of time. I will be using a random figure, but this can be done, say, by staking above 1000NUM for 360 days for 10 vote power or staking 1000NUM for 180 days to get 5 vote power. So. It can follow these mechanics for CAPTCH-A holders to increase their voting power. Stake 1000NUM for 90 days to get 10 voting power. Stake 10000NUM for 90 days to get 100 voting power. Stake 1000NUM for 180 days to get 20 voting power. Stake 10000NUM for 180 days to get 200 voting power. Stake 1000NUM for 360 days to get 40 voting power. Stake 10000NUM for 360 days to get 400 voting power. If the team decides to implement this, I believe the 90-day, 180-day, and 360-day staking periods should be used as the baseline. Staking amount and voting power can be changed based on what the team considers to be fair play.” – AkDefi (CV-002-F)

“+voting power should be taken into consideration.” – arpana2628 (CV-002-F)

Burning $NUM to propose

“The idea of burning 5000 NUM if the proposal doesn't pass is a little daunting. In bear market, when the token price is low, it doesn't seem that bad, but probably many people will make some calculations in their minds and look at it from the higher price point of view. And in such situation burning 5000 NUM isn't so encouraging. Maybe as it was mentioned above, some vesting for the tokens if the proposal doesn't pass could be a better solution.” – AniaBeg (CV-002-C)

“As i saw on the post it says that the proposer needs to stake 5000 $NUM to propose. But if the proposal fails then the 5000 num will be burnt .This can minimize our proposals due to the risk that if proposal fails the 5000 num burnt So i suggest team to modify the rule that if proposal fails then also that num will be refunded but this time as vesting for 6-8 months ✅ so that it boosts NFT holders to propose . And if the proposal passes introduce some rewards then with that 5000num refunded” – daredevil8871 (CV-002-C)

“when making proposals the owner of the Rose, Sky, and night must stake 5000 NuM if it passes the num will be refund plus EXTRA percentage on top, to motivate the members to propose and cuz there is risk of the proposal on the contrary will burnt. So no benefit of propose things and it's more risk than benefit. It should be rewarded as percentage extra num when will be refunded.” – Cryptoguy86 (CV-002-D)

Incorporating $NUM staking with Numbers DAO

“I suggest to do staking instead of burning of num tokens.” – lamrd001 (CV-002-C)

40% DAO powered set as team reserved

“I observed that 40% of the minted CAPTCH-A will be set as the team preserved. So how is the team planning to use these in the future.” – Lasheron (CV-002-G)

Adding additional incentives for CAPTCH-A and DAO participation

“Would it be possible to provide some perks to make holding CAPTCH-A NFTs more attractive something like allowing a limited amount of free minting and listing of Captures on the NFT marketplace using network actions.” – Lasheron (CV-002-B)

Request for additional resources

“The general idea of CAPTCHA NFT is great, although it may seem a little complicated for some people (comparing with other projects, where ppl can just vote "yes" or "no", the whole captcha process may look quite difficult and confusing). I would suggest making some visual/video materials describing and promoting captchas - why they are useful, how to use them etc and repetitively posting it on social medias to get community members (especially the new ones) familiar with the topic and advantages of having the captcha.” – AniaBeg (CV-002-A)

Response from Numbers Protocol

It is important to us (Numbers team) that we build the project in collaboration with the community so we appreciate the feedback we received for our first community review. The corresponding proposal index and timeline can be found in the summary table. For member quality (such as how to acquire CAPTCH-A) and proposal-related topics, we suggest running the DAO meetings, collect feedback then continuously improve the rules with the future DAO members.

Regarding Pebble CAPTCH-A

“The key difference between Pebble CAPTCH-A and the rest of the CAPTCH-A's are the Soulbound element to them. Though it is not uncommon to tie a certain NFT ownership to DAO membership we felt to ensure the success of the Numbers Protocol project, we should put it in the hands of active community members, as active community members will know best what the project needs and will act in the projects best interest as opposed to their own. Those active community members will have in their possession a Soulbound CAPTCH-A. As mentioned in the Governance document, Soulbound CAPTCH-A are tied to wallet address and can only be acquired through whitelist whereas Pebble NFTs can be acquired via burning or traded via secondary marketplace. We view Pebble CAPTCH-A as your traditional NFT and as such it is easily acquirable. We want to avoid nefarious individuals from acquiring a Pebble via secondary marketplace and influencing votes when they are not committed to the project. That is why we limit their proposal and voting power, however we open the door from them to still participate as non-voting DAO members. If at a later time they decide to want to be an active member, the whitelist is always available to them. I hope that clarifies things for you.” – ethanwu155

Regarding Burning $NUM to vote & Regarding Burning $NUM to propose & Regarding Incorporating $NUM staking with Numbers DAO

“Like many things, we plan on iterating on the DAO structure over time to improve and adjust certain aspects to ensure the best experience and optimal participation with Numbers DAO. Your suggestions are all noted and we will monitor the situation! If any changes are made, the community will be first to hear about it.” – ethanwu155

“We are aware that community members are concerned with the high price and the Soulbound CAPTCH-A prerequisite in terms of proposals. The reason for this decision is to ensure that quality and necessary proposals and put out to the DAO. Your mechanism for $NUM refund is noted. We will most likely go through many iterations of Number DAO (with community approval of course) before we come to the most optimal.” – ethanwu155

Regarding 40% DAO powered set as team reserved

“40% allocation is team preserved like many other NFT projects. The purpose is to make sure the team can keep rights to talk and propose in the governance meetings. This is very similar to the team-preserved portion of the tokens.” – ethanwu155

Regarding Adding additional incentives for CAPTCH-A and DAO participation

“There have been discussions regarding providing a mechanism to allow a limited amount of free minting and listings within the Numbers ecosystem. This may be tied to CAPTCH-A, it may be tied to something else. It is still up for discussion. If we decide to offer this type of service the community will definitely be the first to hear about it. Stay tuned!” – ethanwu155

Regarding Request for additional resources

“That is a great idea! Our DAO structure is a bit more complicated and unique as compared to other projects. I think creating infographics or posting a video is a great idea to help bridge the knowledge gap. The team will definitely look into this!” – ethanwu155

#1 NUM Token Rewards & Utility (Nov 17 - Dec 16, 2021)

Statistics

# of Comments	25
# of Participants	8
Community Member with most Comments	43z708, imonlydan

Topics Covered:

Staking / CAPTCH-A

“Hi Team Staking 2000 NUM for activation of existing CAPTCH-A (Gray) look high. If Team reduce Staking amount for CAPTCH-A holders we really feel lucky I hope Team will consider our request” ~Sudhakar11128

Staking

“Date: 24/10/2021 NUM & BUSD LP Farming open! (Staking mentioned on the post, actually, it is lp farming ) Farming has 2 types: LP farm and staking farm. Staking is token per token you get some % of the fee and the rewards only per this token you chose. Lp farming will be for a pair of tokens - so the lp token you will get by adding liquidity that will generate the lp token you are staking on in the LP farm. We, Holders also demand staking! Hope soon to see it” ~iamBishalChakraborty

Capture APP Referral System

"I was wondering how the app could grow and I came up with a suggestion, unless I missed it, would it be possible to add some type of refer a friend to the app feature, doesn’t have to be like a token dump but I feel like it would help reach more people and get more people engaged with the app. Something like refer 2 friends get 1 waived mint fee, something along those lines." ~imonlydan

Obtaining CAPTCH-A

“I see that you were talking about the requirements of obtaining a CAPTCH-A NFT. I'd like to add an alternative suggestion, if made to be a set amount, and price of NUM inflates, many community members that aren't financially able won't be able to get one. I feel like maybe the first tier at least should be set at a price, I'm going to reference a S-Coin called Catgirl. They have a "mystery box" that always stays at the equivalent of about 10USD by changing the amount of CGC needed to buy one mystery box as market changes. This could maybe be done to at least the first tier, it would be hard to implement something like this with staking though I haven't thought it through that far but hey just launching ideas that may suit the community better.” ~imonlydan

NUM Selling Pressure Concerns

“Premise According to the white paper, rewards such as Integrity reward and Verification reward are indeed weapons to grow the product and community, but they are also potential selling pressure. I believe that the value of $NUM will naturally increase as the product grows, but a system that maintains a balance between buying and selling pressure is essential for the growth of the community ecosystem, and we should build a system that encourages healthy growth in the price of $NUM. Burning tokens has the effect of increasing scarcity value, but I think it should be considered separately from buying pressure.

So I have two suggestions.

how about having $NUM pay for the enterprise usage of numprotocol api? Part of the $NUM purchased by the enterprise will be burned, and part will be used to generate revenue for the operation. captureclub currently allows users to purchase in ETH or USD, but we will make it possible to use $NUM. And make the fee a little higher for ETH and USD, and lower for $NUM. I think this will create pressure to buy $NUM in order to buy NFT. And the above two suggestions are tied to maintaining a healthy price for $NUM, since the mechanism is to increase the pressure to buy $NUM as the numbersprotocol ecosystem grows.” ~43z708

Response from Numbers Team

It is important to us (Numbers team) that we build the project in collaboration with the community so we appreciate the feedback we received for our first community review.

Regarding Staking

“We are working hard to bring you staking as mentioned in the article to you guys. Please be patient :) & and thanks for your continued interest :)” ~ethanwu155

Regarding CAPTCH-A Staking Requirement

“We are aware that the NUM staking requirement to activate CAPTCH-A may be a little steep. We definitely do not want to exclude devoted community members from participating in governance. We will discuss further internally and share our thoughts on the staking requirement. Thanks for the feedback.” ~ethanwu155

Capture APP Referral System

“This is a good idea and another method of incentivizing members to utilize Capture APP. I’m sure the community will also be on board with this incentive mechanism.” ~ethanwu155

CAPTCH-A Acquisition

“That's a good observation. I think you are right that as the value of NUM inflates we don't want staking and the subsequent community network actions (verification reward, governance, CAPTCH-A) to feel "exclusive" as the Numbers network wishes to be inclusive. This area most likely needs more discussion and community feedback!” ~ethanwu155

Regarding NUM Selling Pressure

NUM Payment

“I believe it makes sense for users of Numbers technology to pay NUM instead of fiat. The challenge will be, enterprises need estimable costs to run a sustainable business. The big fluctuation of crypto may become the barrier to stop them from using Numbers Protocol. The current idea is to create a NUM fund. When the price goes high, the fund may liquidate some NUM tokens, and when the price goes low, this fund can be used to create incentives for enterprise users or help them use Numbers API with a relatively stable price. These are just some super preliminary ideas, nothing serious yet. Any suggestions/comments are more than welcome.” ~tammyyang

CaptureClub NUM payment

“We have been working on NUM payment already. Probably the better way to encourage users to pay with NUM is to create incentives, such as 10% off if you pay with $NUM. I know it may sound the same as a higher fee in ETH and USD, but encouragement instead of punishment is usually a better solution I think.

Regarding the question "if the 10% off price is not a disadvantage to the seller" , here are my opinions As "trust" has its value (thinking about when we buy things on Amazon, we tend to buy items with high review scores even though these items are sometimes more expensive), I believe sellers can sell the items at a bit higher price than on other platforms. I.e. theoretically, buyers are willing to pay a bit higher price for this "guarantee". This gives us some room to compensate users who use NUM to trade because they participate in the building of Numbers Protocol by using its default currency.” ~tammyyang