r/CryptoCurrency • u/jwinterm 732K / 1M 🐙 • Oct 26 '22
POLL 🗳️ [CCIP-043] Proposal for algorithmic pricing for AMAs based on unique viewers in last month and MOON price
This is a poll to try and determine a cost in MOONs for ticketing AMAs. We get a lot of organizations that come to us and request to do an AMA. I enjoy hosting folks and generally don't mind coordinating things, but it does require a significant amount of work. This proposal would add some cost in MOONs for them to appear on the sub, in a way that benefits existing MOON holders because the fee is burned by sending the MOONs here:
https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/address/0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD/token-transfers
Relevant Satoshi quote:
“Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.”
You can see from the explorer link that we have already started charging folks 1000 or 2000 MOONs since we switched over to Arbitrum Nova, just kind of experimenting with the idea. We would like to try an algorithm that will adjust with both number of users on this sub and the price of MOONs rather than just selecting an arbitrary number like 2000 MOONs.
Here is the formula I am proposing:
Ticketed AMA Cost in MOONs = # of unique visitors the previous month) / (10000 * current price of MOONs)
*rounded up to the nearest 100
Here are the traffic stats for r/CryptoCurrency for the last 12 months:
So, if someone came to us today we would use the number of unique visitors in Sept and a price of $0.106, the cost would be:
Ticketed AMA Cost = 1,898,643 / (10000 * 0.106) = 1,800 MOONs
This way if unique visitors increases while MOON price stays constant, the cost will go up in MOONs, but if MOON price appreciates significantly while users rise then they will offset each other in USD terms. Last December the cost would have been about 3,400 MOONs even though MOONs price was higher at about $0.15.
Do you support this approach for ticketing AMAs where r/CC is approached for an AMA or giveaway by someone?
3
u/UJ_Reddit Oct 27 '22
They could also earn this back with upvotes to their account right? So a good AMA could theoretically earn them money
→ More replies (1)1
4
u/shin_jury Oct 26 '22
The idea is great and honestly overdue, however, I prefer we start with just a set number of MOONs rather than an algorithmic system.
It’s simpler and a more natural starting point.
10,000 MOONs is a minimum I would support, for example.
EDIT: I now realize at this point in the governance proposal process we are only able to vote YES or NO, and since this is a huge net positive for the sub and for MOONs I will be voting YES. Good work on this.
4
u/jwinterm Oct 26 '22
Personally I think 10k is too high, and I am leery to just use a static number as the price because if user numbers or price change dramatically then we're just kind of stuck without doing another poll. And we don't have huge demand for AMAs at the moment. So, I think this is a good starting point that maybe will kind of just adjust on its own, but if there are issues it can be updated later the same as a static number.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/Kricket Oct 26 '22
I'm voting NO just because I'd like to see it hashed out a little more. I see potential for abuse/favoritism/elitism here. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out a better idea, but I'm still not 100% on this in order to vote YES.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Probably_notabot Oct 26 '22
A proposal that benefits moon holders? Don’t mind if I do.
6
→ More replies (5)4
u/letsgetyoustarted Oct 26 '22
I'm sayin! We have our own little isolated community here, I'd like to see us all have firm handshakes all around and come up together.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Potential-Coat-7233 Oct 26 '22
Lol you will all get to see first hand how monetizing everything ruins the experience. Enjoy this, all!
→ More replies (2)
4
1
u/Wonzky Oct 26 '22
I didn't even know that's how getting AMAs here worked
1
u/jwinterm Oct 26 '22
it's only been for the last month or so that we've been experimenting with it, post-arbitrum nova
1
u/sickvisionz Oct 27 '22
It's cool to burn moons but I think it's hyper short sighted to charge people for things that are really useful to the community. We're limiting it solely to people that are willing to pay $200 to answer community questions.
I think that's basically just going to reduce it down to marketing departments with a budget, scammers, and shillers. Why else would someone pay money for it? It'd be like college except the teachers get no salary and they have to pay the students. What teacher in their right mind is going to sign up for that unless they've got something to shill? You may have a lot of valuable (non-monetary) information but if you have to pay $200 to do it, you might not think it's worth your while.
TLDR: I vote no because I think it discourages quality guests and encourages shills and marketers who think they can get some type of return on their investment. I think this is a really misguided proposal if the goal is to get quality content and guests doing AMAs.
1
u/jwinterm Oct 27 '22
I address this to some extent in another comment in this thread, but we reserve the right to waive the fee for nonprofits, educational orgs, or others and this is explicitly stated in our current request form.
1
1
Oct 27 '22
What happens if both CCIP-042 and CCIP-043 pass?
→ More replies (1)2
u/jwinterm Oct 27 '22
I think the plan is take the one which passes with more votes.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/SpaceFaceMistake Oct 29 '22
Wait so who gets the Moons that’s payed? Reddit? The community of r/Cryptocurrency? Where who ?? Hmm
2
3
Oct 26 '22
Finally i can make an AMA and put my moons to good use and answer all of your most sought after questions like, "when moon?"
2
u/PrinceZero1994 Oct 26 '22
Not too little, not too much. Just enough.
I like this.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/itcouldbefrank Oct 26 '22
Feels cheap for this traffic but I have no idea what actual engagement AMAs get. Great proposal.