UX research is ongoing, however, here are a few metrics that I would like to propose for Chainverse. I invite everyone to battle-test the usefulness of these metrics and theoretical value of what they show. In addition, can we discuss the feasibility of tracking these values as described? Thanks! -Steff
DAOs are networks of people who choose to associate. If we agree with the truthfulness of this statement, then I propose to develop a system to map the affiliations of individuals and the DAOs they are associated with. It would be extremely useful to see a map of affiliations between individuals and between DAOs based on the associations they have in common.
The vibrancy of DAOs is determined by the participation & competence of member contributors. If we agree on the truthfulness of this statement, then I propose that we create two types of Participation Scores that we can use in several different applications.
The first is a Lifetime Participation Score, measured by how many DAOs an individual have ever been a member of. The theory is that DAO participation correlates positively to team competence.
The second is an Active Participation Score, measured by how many DAOs an individual has contributed to (by voting, proposals, or forum posts) in the past 90 days.
The theory is that Active participation correlates in a bell curve with competence. More participation correlates to increased competence, until the point at which the individual is spread too thin, and the relationship reverses. Over-participation correlates to decreased competence.
I think we should definitely develop metrics to support something along the lines of lifetime participation score / active participation score. As you’ve mentioned/, others are beginning to develop similar frameworks for internal use.
For instance, DXdao may engage us to help them develop “governance influence scores” to support the roll out of their Governance 2.0 framework (see here).
The theory is that Active participation correlates in a bell curve with competence. More participation correlates to increased competence, until the point at which the individual is spread too thin, and the relationship reverses. Over-participation correlates to decreased competence.
I love this point. It was my initial reaction when I saw the way Deep DAO ranked wallets based on how many DAOs they were participating in. I wonder what we would need to do to test the hypothesis?
We may have another powerful metric to track here, and @feralchain.eth also mentioned this today on the community call, that is -
The average holding time between when token holders bought and sold tokens
The theory is that holding period correlates with community resilience, and in cases where voting rights are afforded to token holders, an additional theory is that longer holding periods correlate with good governance. Example, DXdao allows up to 50% of the individual’s voting power to be influenced by their commitments to DXD staking.
I also like holding time; holding time as well as price volatility (also raised by @Feralchain) both speak to community commitment.
Here is a good explainer on Token Velocity, which is related to holding time.
Velocity is the speed at which transactions take place. Karn tokens have a high velocity because the cycle of buying and selling Karn tokens happens within seconds. Token velocity is important because it shows investors how volatile their money is in their choice cryptocurrency. Applying the laws of the market, a cryptocurrency can gain inflationary value. If the tokens increase at a rapid rate, investors will likely sell their tokens for cash. This causes the token’s value in the market to drop. Even though the market changes quickly in this example, the intrinsic value of the token remains the same. Token holders that participate in long-term investing will create less volatility and an increase in actual token value.