Season 2 Ideas - Dev Contributor Rewards

Ecosystem Campaigns
1

Hi there! I’m Qinghao, a co-founder of According.Work — a platform that automatically tracks, evaluates, and rewards contributions in the open-source ecosystem. We’re excited to propose a solution for distributing SUP token rewards based on developer contributions.

Title

Season 2 ideas – Dev Contributor Rewards (via according.work leaderboard)

Project Name

Dev Contributor Rewards (via according.work leaderboard)

Project Description

  • according.work proposes a reward mechanism for open-source developers who contribute to Superfluid’s core protocol.
  • The program analyzes both retrospective and ongoing GitHub contributions, scores them via a leaderboard, and streams SUP tokens to contributors.
  • The integration encourages sustained, high-quality contributions, aligning with Season 2 goals to grow ecosystem apps and deepen developer engagement.

Website

https://superfluid-leaderboard.netlify.app/

How does the project use Superfluid?

according.work has analyzed the 5 repos below (more to be added in the future) and provided a leaderboard of contributors based on their code quality, dev reputation, and activities to the repos

1 - GitHub - superfluid-org/protocol-monorepo: Superfluid Protocol Monorepo: the specification, implementations, peripherals and development kits.

2 - GitHub - superfluid-org/custom-supertokens: Examples for how to implement Custom Super Tokens and how to test them

3 - GitHub - superfluid-org/super-examples

4 - GitHub - superfluid-org/superfluid-sentinel

5 - GitHub - superfluid-org/superfluid-dashboard: Dashboard V2

Team Members

Qinghao - Open source enthusiast with 1.2k+ GitHub followers · Formerly at Alibaba, ByteDance, and Apache Cloudberry
Chenyu - User Researcher at ByteDance · B.A. from UC Berkeley
Hanqun - Open source contributor to Kubernetes and cloud-native projects

Social Links

x.com/youbetdao

Total Users

Over 120 historical contributors analyzed

Fee Structure

No fees for developers; claim is free and merit-based

User Persona

Web3 developers contributing to:

  • protocol-monorepo
  • custom-supertokens
  • super-examples
  • superfluid-sentinel
  • superfluid-dashboard

KPI to be incentivised by SUP

  • Merged Pull Requests and High Quality Issues on core protocol repos
  • High-quality, reputation-weighted developer contributions
  • Return rate of devs over time (weekly updated reward leaderboard)
  • GitHub login-linked claims from the Superfluid claim app
9 Likes
2

I think the idea is good, but we need to figure out if those repos are the best ones.

Side quest idea: have it for the protocols participating on Season 2 (the reasoning is that could boost their development, increasing the value added by them)

2 Likes
4

Haha. Good point!
These projects are actually provided by Superfluid Team. We think more projects in ecosystem will be considered in next stage.

We also have a platform helping people to donate to their favorite projects contributors, it’s in beta now, would you like to have a try. https://according.work
Feel free to DM me on tg: Telegram: Contact @element14_revival

2 Likes
5

Oh I really like this idea!

While not all of them are open source, but this would actually also work as an incentive for them to become open source.

Worth thinking for a few minutes about the possible risks in this, but overall I’d be very supportive of this!

3 Likes
6

Actually, our platform can also track private projects if permission is granted. However, it’s challenging to build public trust around evaluation results in that case.

That said, the more open things are, the better — that’s the spirit of web3.

2 Likes
7

SUP!

I just posted in the Flow State S2 Proposal thread about our plans to allocate 1M of our $SUP for S2 to this Dev Contributor Rewards campaign.

We’ve been in touch with Superfluid core & @wfnuser + team behind the scenes about making this happen. I believe there is a desire to expand the number of repos tracked (e.g. OS apps & tooling built on Superfluid) with community input. This post can serve as the catalyst for that discussion!

5 Likes
8

I am very supportive of this. Was a pity to not see the original proposal go through, but happy to see this collaboration with Flow State.

What kind of Repositories are you thinking of including?

I’d include everything under the superfluid-org organisation on github, which is all open-source

Would love to include the Superfluid docs too.

Would also love to see more ecosystem projects, although there need to be some guard-rails to avoid people self-allocating votes.

@wfnuser how easy is it to differentiate a good commit from a bad commit? Does your system analyse this kind of thing?

3 Likes
9

Nice to see this idea going forward :flexed_biceps:

3 Likes
10

Sorry for the late reply — I was on vacation.

It’s not a straightforward task, but we used an algorithm similar to PageRank to evaluate the influence of each commit.
The basic intuition is: if influential developers pay more attention to a particular issue or pull request, then that item is likely important as well.

2 Likes
11

It seems reasonable to have an open application process for adding ecosystem projects to the list, but apply some simple objective criteria (open source license, Github user older than X months, project in production, Superfluid is a core component, trusted user sponsor(?), etc) for acceptance and reserve the right to kick any project deemed to be spamming for points (AccordingWork & Superfluid discretion–no appeal).

I don’t think you want to gate projects on how old they are—the incentive for new builders to join the ecosystem because of these rewards is a good one!

This could become a “production project” complement to the Frontier Guild.

1 Like
12

Totally agree.

Would it make sense to add an entry point where users can either submit their own open-source repo, or claim one later once we’ve completed the scanning and discovery feature?

We could provide an initial evaluation and let the community vote on which projects they find valuable. Our system would also assess each contributor’s impact on the project. Do you think this kind of open and collaborative validation process could work well?

13

I was thinking of the submit flow in my suggestion. If you have a good scan/discovery tool, it would save some friction to include more legit projects proactively. At the individual rewards level, every developer will need to claim their SUP via the reserve contract setup, regardless.

I think getting a community vote involved for inclusion is overkill. Especially since the season has already started, I’d prioritize speed and ease of implementation for the project onramp. Stick to objective criteria, the best you can, for your inclusion evaluation.

In your system, is the relative impact assessed per project or globally? i.e., would you expect an average impact on a massive project to outweigh a big impact on a tiny project?

14

We support both types of impact evaluation. One algorithm calculates relative contributions within each project, and another compares contributors across multiple projects.

That said, if the imported projects are relatively balanced in influence, the results won’t differ much either way. Our project evaluation doesn’t rely heavily on historical stars—instead, we analyze how contributors allocate their attention across projects within a defined window.

If needed, we can normalize each project’s influence to be equal and then calculate contributor impact within each project separately and sum it up.

15

Gotcha. Thanks for the info, @wfnuser.

Project influence isn’t equal in practice, so I wouldn’t advocate holding it constant in the algorithm. Treating all projects equally would likely increase the risk of gaming the system.

Also, I’m not trying to meddle with all the thoughtful design and work you’ve put in. Just excited to see this get out there!