[SIP #14] Ecosystem Campaigns – Season 6

Proposals
,
1

1. Abstract

SPR Season 6 continues distribution of SUP to users of ecosystem applications and tops up Staking and LP Rewards.

2. Type

Non-Constitutional

3. Motivation

SPR Season 6 aims to continue driving engagement of a growing list of Established applications, facilitate the participation of New applications and tops up Staking and LP Rewards.

4. Rationale

Season 6 continues the refinements introduced in Season 5 to encourage broader and more sustainable user participation and lowering friction for New projects.

Under the New projects process, 3 new projects joined the program in Season 5.

As fewer Reserve users have opted for the Reserve Drain option since Season 5, this has reduced Community Charges flowing into the Staking Rewards Controller, which will be addressed by the top up by the DAO of the Staking Rewards Controller.

5. Key Terms

  • Streaming Programmatic Rewards (SPR): DAO mechanism for distributing SUP to users of ecosystem applications and projects.
  • Ecosystem Campaigns: Application or project specific incentive programs funded via SPR.
  • Established Project Campaigns: Campaigns managed by ecosystem applications already established in SPR [currently includes: Degen Dogs, FlowState, Gardens, Giveth, GoodDollar, Markee, Nerite, ProductClank, Streme, SuperBoring, TYSM]
  • New Project Campaigns: Campaigns managed by projects new to SPR or recently launched.
  • Community Campaigns: Campaigns focused on broad Superfluid community engagement, using Superfluid technology, managed by Superfluid Foundation team.
  • Ecosystem Steering Group: A steering group established by the Superfluid Foundation, comprising representatives from established ecosystem projects, supporting review and onboarding of New Projects and advising on the broader ecosystem. The group acts in an advisory capacity only and supports the Foundation by reviewing New Project Campaign submissions and helping identify promising new integrations. The group does not control budget allocation or make binding decisions. Participation is voluntary and intended to recognise the experience and contributions of long-standing ecosystem builders.
  • Reserves: Individual smart contracts, whose upgradeability is controlled by governance. See Technical Overview

6. Specifications

a. Budget & Timeline

  • Total budget for Season 6 = 15,000,000 SUP
  • Budget per category listed below
  • Start & End Date : expected 1 June to 31 August

b. Established Project Campaigns

  • Budget: 6,000,000 SUP
  • Invitation to submit Campaign Ideas: To be issued by Foundation team, lasting 1 week
  • Eligible Campaign Ideas: Those submissions deemed to have provided sufficient information to indicate the project/app/team is ready to integrate with the SPR system and manage a successful campaign.
  • Campaign Selection Process: An implementation-level DAO vote to be held, lasting around 1 week. Campaign Selection Process voting are implementation level votes conducted under the authority granted by this SIP, and do not constitute a separate DAO proposals or require independent SIP approval.
  • Weighted Voting Strategy: DAO members and Delegates can spread their voting power across the Eligible Campaigns. % share of vote for each would then be applied to the Budget for Established Project Campaigns. The total SUP allocated shall not exceed the budget approved in this proposal.
  • 3% cut-off: Eligible Campaigns with less than 3% of each vote will not be included in Season and SUP votes for them will be redistributed to the successful campaigns on a pro-rata basis.
  • Sub-campaigns: Campaigns which are granted SUP Allocations for the Season can then determine distribution of their SUP allocation to their sub-campaigns where applicable.
  • Campaign Start and End dates: Campaigns which are granted SUP Allocations for the Season must begin during the Season, otherwise they will forfeit their allocation and the DAO will retain the allocation. Campaigns should last no longer than 6 months.
  • 5% cap on Campaign earn rate per user: To encourage broad participation and reduce excessive concentration of rewards to only a few earners, a 5% cap will be applied to each users’ share of each Campaign flow rate, subject to implementation feasibility.
  • Insider Participation: To ensure fair and effective use of Ecosystem Campaigns, project and campaign leads are expected not to participate in their own campaigns in ways that generate points or rewards. This includes creating or using accounts, contracts, or donation flows under their control to route activity back to themselves for the purpose of earning campaign rewards. Campaign incentives should be directed toward genuine external users and ecosystem activity.
    :page_with_curl: By submitting a proposal or participating as a campaign lead, project and campaign leads are deemed to confirm that they are not directly or indirectly claiming points or rewards for their own benefit.

c. New Project Campaigns

  • Budget: 1,000,000 SUP
  • Invitation to submit Campaign Ideas: To be issued by Foundation team and lasting until the budget for New Project Campaigns has been allocated.
  • Eligible Campaign Ideas: Foundation will consult with the Ecosystem Steering Group to select Eligible Campaign Ideas for New Project Campaigns and allocate a portion of the budget, considering the project:
    – i. Usage of Superfluid technology
    – ii. Readiness
    – iii. Impact (users and other benefits)
    – iv. Onboarding (complexity and effort)
  • Rolling Onboarding: Eligible New Project Campaigns may be onboarded on a rolling basis throughout the Season until the budget has been allocated.

d. Community Campaigns

  • Budget: 3,000,000 SUP
  • Implementation: Superfluid Foundation team to develop and launch these during the Season.

e. Staking and LP Rewards top up

  • Budget: 5,000,000 SUP
  • Implementation: Transfer 5,000,000 SUP from DAO Treasury to Staking Reward Controller. Staking Rewards Controller distributes its SUP holding to Stakers and Liquidity Providers via a linear stream over 6 months. It’s SUP holding is sourced from:
    – i. Community Charges collected through users who choose the Reserve Drain option and
    – ii. Any additional SUP transferred to it, including this Staking and LP Rewards top up.

7. Steps to Implement and Timelines

  • DAO vote on this proposal - 29 April > 5 May

  • Established Project Campaigns
    – Invitation to submit Campaign Ideas: 6 May - 12 May
    – Eligibility assessment: 13 May
    – Campaign Selection Vote: 14 May - 20 May
    – Campaign launches: from June

  • New Project Campaigns:
    – Invitation to submit Campaign Ideas, Eligibility assessment, Rolling Onboarding from 18 May
    – Campaign launches: from June

  • Community Campaigns: from June

  • Staking and LP Rewards top up: from June

8. Overall Cost

  • DAO SUP emissions: up to 15,000,000 SUP
  • Operational Costs: covered by existing Foundation resources
8 Likes
2

Thanks for all your good work keeping Superfluid on the track. :slightly_smiling_face:

I have a couple of notes/questions.

Small typo - I trust the actual budget is 15,000,000 SUP. :slightly_smiling_face:

I think this is a very sensible rule, conceptually.

What is the team’s current view on ‘implementation feasibility’? What is possible, and what is not?

It is my understanding that in this season streams have semi-manually been cut (by someone in Superfluid) when they were reported by any community member to have received more than 5% of the pool’s total allocation. They were then cut down to 1 pool unit, so not completely shut off, but allowed to stream at a low rate for the rest of the period (why?).

While I suspect it might be technically challenging to prevent users from deliberately evading the cap rule by using multiple (anonymous) addresses, I think it would be totally possible to at least have an automated script that discovers single addresses that have passed the cap (say, once or twice a day) and either automatically turns them down to 0 (not 1), or notifies a Superfluid admin who can perform the task.

Will the Superfluid team commit to this level of rule policing in S6?

This is also an important rule, and based on stated approval in this forum in the past, I would have expected all projects to take great care to honor it.

However, in S5 I have been following the Giveth pool closely (because I was donating to that campaign myself), and I noticed that:

For a long time, a couple of addresses were eating most of the campaign stream. I reported them when they each had eaten +5% of the total allocation, and after some back and forth (Superfluid asked me to talk to Giveth and Giveth asked me to talk to Superfluid), those receivers were partly cut off and left with a single pool unit.

I’m mentioning it in context of the insider rules because I later found out that one of those addresses belongs to @karmaticacid who has been the one speaking on behalf of the Giveth campaign team in this forum.

Furthermore, within a day after Karmaticacid’s stream was cut off (due to the cap), a new address entered the pool and immediately grasped 26% of the running campaign flow. This reserve address apparently belongs to Griff Green, founder of Giveth. (By now, this address is getting close to the 5% overall cap as well).

To give everyone a chance to sort out any misunderstandings internally, I notified a Superfluid team member of what I was seeing. As I understand it, the case was then discussed internally and questions were forwarded to Giveth, but I was told that there was no response from Giveth and I would be notified if they returned with one.

This all leaves me wondering:

  • Are people like Karmaticacid (mentioned explicitly as a team member in Giveth’s campaign post) and Griff Green (Giveth founder) not insiders of the kind that are asked to not participate in their own campaign?
  • And what should be Superfluid’s reaction IF the insider “expectations” are not being honored?

I understand that it would be very difficult to prevent anyone from breaking this rule by using anonymous addresses, but I think it would be good if all projects were to explicitly state that they intend to honor the intent (OR that they will not if they are of the view that code is law), and explicitly disclose who are the insiders who will voluntarily abstain from participating.

Also, I think it is fair to let Superfluid DAO voters know if a project seems to be breaking / not honoring these limits.

Here are screenshots of the Giveth pool (according to the Superfluid explorer) and from Basescan, to share what I am seeing.

(The total Giveth allocation in S5 was 716k SUP, so the 5% rule allows each user at most 35800 SUP.)

IMG_9375
IMG_93751170×2532 201 KB

IMG_9376
IMG_93761170×2532 175 KB

IMG_9377
IMG_93771170×2532 256 KB

IMG_9380
IMG_93801170×2532 257 KB

IMG_9381
IMG_93811170×2532 193 KB

IMG_9382
IMG_93821170×2532 258 KB

5 Likes
3

Thank you for your dedication.

2 Likes
4

Thanks for raising @joanbp

Core team passes all relevant feedback to the individual campaigns.

On enforcing the 5% cap and insider participation:
Neither is currently enforceable in a fully automated way, particularly across multiple or related addresses. With 60k+ Reserve holders, there is no reliable way (which can be applied consistently and fairly to everyone) to attribute addresses to specific users.

During the season, addresses exceeding the 5% earn rate have been manually capped. This is time-intensive and not scalable, and there are also a number of edge cases that create complexity, including back and forth shifting of points/earn rates across campaigns.

No formal anti-sybil measures were applied this season, with an expectation of good faith participation. The approach was iterative and should be seen partly as an experiment for this season. It doesn’t capture all the nuances. But it has helped surface patterns, prompt discussion, and introduce some practical friction around concentration.

The mechanism will be reviewed for future seasons, again subject to feasibility.

More robust enforcement would require dedicated tooling, reporting, and monitoring, which would need resourcing and a DAO-approved budget, not currently in scope of this proposal.

Hence, expectations are set at the campaign level, and ultimately DAO members decide which projects to support through voting.

2 Likes
5

Thanks for your reply.

Sybil detection is a hard problem, for sure. I would not expect Superfluid to have the solution for that, or even to try to solve it.

So - to check my understanding: The ‘rules’ are there, but we should expect about the same level of enforcement of them in S6 as we have seen in S5?

Meaning - you will check and put a break on individual streams when they are reported by someone to have passed the 5% cap?

And the expectation of no insider participation is not so much a rule as it is a request - if anyone ignores the request, and you hear about it, you will let them know, but most likely take no further action… Is that a correct interpretation?

For DAO members to vote responsibly - without being able to leave it to the team to discretely monitor and enforce campaign rules - it requires much public debate about matters that do not necessarily represent Superfluid and SPR campaigns in the most positive light…

It also demands a level of technical understanding and insight into campaign specifics, addresses and tool usage that I would not expect the average DAO member to have.

Is it really desirable to have the entire community debate publicly what’s up and what’s down whenever someone thinks that maybe possibly someone somewhere is breaking a rule?

It seems to me that this kind of publicity will create more stress on campaign team members than a neutral enforcement from the side of the Superfluid team.

But if DAO members do not air their suspicions and share technical details, and if they are not encouraged to do so, how can they be expected to know who to vote for?

3 Likes
6

Thanks @joanbp for framing these questions.

5% Cap

On the 5% cap, enforcement has been limited. Manual capping was applied, but not systematically or automated. It was a slow start as the process was developed during the season. Team will apply the cap more consistently going forward and looking to further improve by Season 6. So expecting improved application of that.

Insider Participation

Have amended the Season 6 proposal text to strengthen the Insider Participation clause, beyond an expectation, to include a clear disclosure:

"By submitting a proposal or participating as a campaign lead, project and campaign leads are deemed to confirm that they are not directly or indirectly claiming points or rewards for their own benefit. "

We can reference back to that after the Campaign Ideas stage during Eligibility Assessment, and check in with projects where there have been issues, that they have resolved and will not reoccur.

4 Likes
7

Sounds great. Thank you! :slight_smile:

8

:megaphone: Voting for SIP #14: Ecosystem Campaigns – Season 6 is live on Snapshot :point_right: HERE :point_left:

1 Like
9

I an unable to vote on this proposal via Snapshot. Tried 2 browsers. The JS console for snapshot . org shows a 500 error when trying to “calculate voting power”. 24 hours now, same issue.

DevTools_-snapshot_box
DevTools_-snapshot_box1002×332 34.2 KB

10

Hi @markcarey team will look into this and we’ll update you.

11

@markcarey can you try again please? Snapshot team have looked into it and should be working now.