Season 3 of Streaming Programmatic Rewards is due to go live mid August and will continue distribution of SUP to those most interested in the long term success of the protocol: users of Superfluid ecosystem apps.
We are still only a â…“ of the way into Season 2 with 9 campaigns launched and more coming soon - see the SUP Dune dashboard for details of activity on live campaigns.
We are kicking off invites for Season 3 today to give applicants time to prepare.
New builders on Superfluid: Want to build using Superfluid and get SUP tokens for your app?
Check out Sup for Growth for ideas and support
Schedule of next steps
Invitation for ideas - starts today, ends Wednesday 16th July
To submit your idea go to Ecosystem Campaigns, click on NEW TOPIC and complete your submission.
Make sure to submit your application by Wednesday 16th July
Ideas Roundtable event - Wednesday 16th July
Live event where projects who have submitted ideas will be invited to give a short talk and q&a about their submission.
Foundation engineering team will then review the projects for readiness and feasibility for inclusion in Season 3.
Season 3 Proposal due on the Forum - Wednesday 23rd July
Voting period starts - Wednesday 30th July
DAO votes on which campaigns will be included in Season 3 and what SUP allocation they will receive.
Mid vote Roundtable event - Wednesday 6th August
Live event for eligible projects to pitch for votes.
Hi @dopamino, is there room for discussion about having some downtime between SPR seasons?
The momentum of continuous rewards is good, but I think the DAO, rewards programs operators, and ecosystem would all benefit from not stacking current season operations with planning+evaluating+voting+implementing next season.
There’s a lot of concurrent activity that we’re cramming into a short period, and some steps are contingent on each other (e.g. setting up SUP allocation only after a program has been accepted in voting).
Agreed on this point. I think it’s great to press forward and keep momentum going into the next season but some period of reflection is helpful to ensure we look at what is working and what is not and adjust to ensure we’re driving towards desired outcomes.
Great points @graven and @Sov, raising these questions:
Should SUP rewards be continuous?
What’s working? what’s not?
How can SPR seasonal operations be more flexible?
Some thoughts:
1. Should SUP rewards be continuous?
Engagement - Data so far shows that seasonal launches boost engagement in terms of claims per day. Chart shows volume of claims in the weeks before and after Season 2 launch (red dots show season launch days) . So we can probably assume that longer seasons (and even more so any gaps between seasons when users can not claim at all) will reduce engagement and total volume of claims over a given time period. Even without the data we can assume the comms effort that accompanies seasonal launches is positive for engagement so lowering launch comms frequency impacts engagement. Probably too early to be sure about this point and we’ll know more after Season 3 launch.
SUP Tokenomics defined the amount and rate of SUP distribution and specified that “on a quarterly basis the DAO will vote on new Ecosystem Campaigns”. Of course the DAO can vote to change this.
2. What’s working? what’s not?
Would welcome everyone to dig more into the data and share their observations as this is a huge topic. But some initial observations below show that we might want to explore how we can grow overall SPR participants and broaden concentration of SUP claimed. These points seem more related to campaign parameters and won’t necessarily benefit from having a gap between seasons.
SPR participants - 38,986 unique participants so far is very positive. But new unique claimers have slowed down. This can benefit from new apps with existing users integrating with the protocol and launching campaigns as well as existing campaigns appealing to new users beyond current SPR users.
Claim behaviour concentration - Metrics show a huge range across the campaigns. Giveth and SuperBoring have the highest average SUP earned per unique claimer. Whilst Community and Streme.fun have the highest number of unique claimers. This reflects in a highly concentrated Leader Board with top 10 claimers currently earn 47% of the live flow rate of Season 2. notes:
5.6 mil SUP/month is earn rate of current top 10 on Leader board
50 million Season 2 budget (for 3 months)
71% is live portion of Season 2 allocation with the rest pending launch
3 months per season
47% =5.6 / (50 x 71% / 3)
3. How can SPR seasonal operations be more flexible?
One idea would be to somewhat delink the governance parameters from the operational parameters and have more flexibility on the campaign operations.
For example: Campaigns allocated SUP in each quarter’s DAO vote can then choose when during that quarter they launch and the duration of their campaign stream could be between 3 to 6 months (rather than always ending at the end of the season they were voted on as has been the case).
“Event marketing” is clearly helpful for breaking through the baseline noise we’re exposed to every day in crypto. Season 1 & 2 launches have served that role for the ecosystem. My goal would be for individual campaign launches to become events themselves with more flexibility/time between officially receiving a SUP allocation & the cutoff for fully executing a campaign. That’s where the ecosystem and apps themselves will get the most out of SUP imo.
So, I like really this “delink” idea. I think it could help us bridge the best of both worlds—maintain momentum with continuous rewards while creating more space for campaign marketing & execution excellence.
Just to confirm: SUP Tokenomics explicitly defines a quarterly voting cycle as you pointed out. It is silent about the operational parameters unless I’m missing something somewhere. It seems that operational adjustments don’t require a full DAO vote, correct? I’d love to get some other perspectives from other campaign operators, Foundation reps, and community members, of course.
@graven yes delinking the exact start and end date of a campaign from the voting dates should not require a separate DAO vote. I think for practical reasons there should still be some parameters for latest start date and longest duration which I suggested in the example above. Pending feedback, we can look at making these explicit in the Season 3 proposal.
@graven effectively yes. After ideas are submitted by 16th July, Foundation team will then have a week to review them for readiness and feasibility and confirm they can be included in the Season 3 proposal scheduled for 23rd July. Fine tuning the submissions during that review period makes sense.
Hey @dopamino, thanks for setting this up early, the clear timeline really helps everyone get ready.
I see the upside of keeping momentum strong, as you mentioned. The seasonal launches clearly boost engagement and claims, so I get why continuous rewards matter for growth.
At the same time, I agree with @graven and @Sov that the overlap makes it tough to fully analyze Season 2 while planning and voting for Season 3. Good governance takes real time too: reviewing data, writing rationales, coordinating quorum, all of that keeps the DAO resilient but adds invisible workload.
In my Season 2 rationale I highlighted “infrastructure and coordination layers” as key for protocol resilience. Maybe there’s room now to revisit what @seliquiraised, whether we could run a small pilot to test lightweight incentives or rewards for active governance contributors. Something simple, like a tiered structure or a leaderboard, similar to how dev contributor rewards were framed in Season 2.
Curious how others see it, could be worth trying in S3.
could run a small pilot to test lightweight incentives or rewards for active governance contributors
You mentioned doing
something like the dev rewards …
how would that be measurable?
Right now for the dev rewards campaign, which should launch this week, this is done very scientifically by measuring contributions to specific repositories.
Now sure if there’s a way to do this for governance too, and what exactly would be the “rewardable” actions
Hey @0xFran, fair point. Governance is definitely harder to measure than dev work, which is why the dev rewards leaderboard works well: commits and PRs are clear, objective signals.
For governance, there’s no clean metric, but other DAOs like Arbitrum, Uniswap, Optimism, and Lido do compensate top delegates for things like consistent voting, clear rationales, proposal reviews, and forum engagement. Many use tools like Karma to track this transparently.
In Superfluid’s case, it’s different since we vote by seasons: fewer votes, but each round has big budgets, data, and proposals, so there’s a lot to unpack every time.
If we ever wanted to mirror the dev rewards, it could mean:
Publishing clear rationales for Season votes
Doing post-season analysis: what worked, what didn’t
The key would be setting clear standards upfront, so it’s fair and not gameable, maybe with a simple leaderboard or working group, like other DAOs do.
Wednesday 16th July 
For technical questions, reach out on Superfluid Discord Dev Support channel
