Yes, using a quadratic scoring rule the number of organizations contributing to a score becomes relevant. In the current model scores are weighted linearly wrt to capital and activity volume, and so for a given app score the number of organizations contributing doesn’t matter.
In order to support a significantly larger number (eg from 5 current, to 100) we will want to change how we are indexing tokens @onbjerg mentions above, but we have a plan to do that. The question is ultimately what tokens should qualify and there are some important considerations.
I don’t think a “top 100” model makes sense, as the cutoff at 100 doesn’t really seem to have much objective meaning. However, we could do something like all ERC20s on uniswap with atleast X liquidity depth. The liquidity depth metric is important because when calculating AUM we are taking the spot price * the amount held by the organization. If there is a token with a large supply and little liquidity, that can be a massive distortion. We might also be able to apply some heuristics where we discount the spot price based on the available liquidity. This seems like a pretty solid approach, but I could see where certain assets would still be missed like asset arrays (eg set protocol), which may have a clear and difficult to manipulate valuation despite themselves not having much liquidity on uniswap.
If its something that we think is sufficient to handle without any sort of special cases then we can just do that, if its something we think might require subjective consideration we would likely rely on some sort of registry that is moderated by the Aragon Court like we intend to do for Application/Publisher eligibility.
In any case it would be great to have peoples feedback on what tokens should or should not be included, right now some obvious omissions are the compound tokens like cDAI. If we have some specific examples we can start to reason about whether a simple approach like “tokens on uniswap with x liquidity” would be a reasonable solution moving forward, or if we need to think of and implement something more sophisticated.
Yes, the intention here would be for the Application Blacklist/Whitelist used for app mining to be moderated by the Aragon Court using Agreements to determine what should or should not be on the list. We are currently using this org to mock this process using two instances of Autarks Address Book app. We can curate the registry in a centralized but transparent manner now, and do our best to emulate the dispute process, and then easily turn over authority to the Aragon Court directly as soon as Phase 3 launches.
In the meantime we can use the org to integrate features in Apiary that depend on the whitelist/blacklist content.
I agree!
However, the classification of A1 as a non-independent developer is a bit ambiguous. I would love to see some additional debate/feedback on this point as it has very large impact on projected payouts. Would also be great to get a comment from @jorge on the topic.
