PROPOSAL #90 [REJECTED] Community Health research, analytics and benchmarking

Hey, I’m Danielo, part of RnDAO. I’d love to hear your feedback on this proposal to champion healthier Web3 communities and provide insights to advance the Cosmos Hub and Cosmos ecosystem. Simple Summary If Web3 is all about communities, how do we know if we’re heading in the right direction? We’ve been advancing a research project to: • develop a framework for Community Health with actionable metrics • create an open source data collection tool • implement the tool in Cosmos Hub and others • analyse the interactions and perceptions data to validate the framework and provide insights to advance the Cosmos community. We’re seeking $30,000 or equivalent as grant match-funding to complete the project. For clarity, the output of this grant is a community health assessment (including conceptual framework, designing KPIs, building the data collection tool, etc). And a range of more specific, actionable insights on how to improve community health. We can’t say what the specific insights are before doing the research, though. About RnDAO We’re an R&D DAO with a mission to empower humane collaboration. Having already delivered research projects on sub-DAOs, DAO…

Excerpt (1192 of 10422 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Interesting approach.

Are you mainly focussed on DAO’s? Since not everything is currently created as a DAO.
Or what do you see as a DAO? Since that starting point makes quite the difference regarding your targetted audience.

Furthermore, what happens after week 16? We will have a set of recommendations if I read it correctly, but who will do the required follow-up? Only having recommendations is not worth money imo, we need implementation to make the spending of money be of added value

Thank you for your question!
The focus is primarily on DAOs but the approach can also evaluate other types of Web3 Communities (the limiting factors are the platforms in which they operate as we’re starting with Discord and plan to expand to other data sources, although that will take a bit of time).

After week 16 the project continues. We don’t know yet what the recommendations coming out of the workshop will be, so it’s hard to discuss execution of any subsequent initiatives. But we do hope to continue supporting the Cosmos ecosystem and will likely make subsequent proposals or invite others (as appropriate) to do so.

Does that work for you?

Please let us know if you have any more questions/doubts/concerns/feedback

Thanks for your answer!

I was just looking to your budget and timeline. If I understand correctly you are targetting a $90k budget of which $60k has already been approved. The remaining $30k is requested from the Cosmos community.
The split in expected spending is a nice $30k. Where is the other $60k spend on?

Because with 16 weeks timeline and $90k funding this means a spending of more than $5k per week. Which is a lot imo for research.

I have been intending to follow up on this post for sometime, but have been delayed due to the flurry of governance activity recently. I suspect this is the case for many others as well. Thank you @danielo for your proposal. I have attended three RnDAO events and followed along with the work produced by various RnDAO team members. I believe that working with the RnDAO team would be highly beneficial to the Cosmos Hub. However, I would not advocate for only the creation of the tool. Cosmos Hub governance is currently very young, and lacks the basic foundation that may be present in other DAOs. Likewise, Cosmos has a potentially unique governance model and structure that is related to its underlying principles and values. As such, alongside the creation of the Community Health tooling, I would also advocate for an ongoing RnDAO consultancy effort for the Cosmos Hub. Of course, any such work would need to be coordinated with other entities that may be already serving or seek to serve a similar role. This is indirectly mentioned here: danielo: analyse the interactions and perceptions data to validate the framework and provide insights to advance the Cosmos community.…

Excerpt (1198 of 1953 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for asking. So we’re actually spending more than that (our total expense now is projected closer to $150k, most of the shortfall is being covered by the team who deeply believes in this idea). As such, we’re now asking a few more organizations to join Aave, Aragon, MetCartel, and hopefully Cosmos too in helping us advance this project. The reason for the budget expansion is that now having completed the PoC, we’re targeting the development of a fully functioning tool and will continue to deepen the analysis. This enables us to provide the health assessment not only as a one-off but as the real-time analytics we envision can help community members co-shape their communities on the flight with a deep understanding of the social dynamics taking place. We could also provide insights to not only Cosmos but also other Cosmos-based communities (currently impossible with the PoC given the number of manual tasks required). We can show you the current prototype over a call (or happy to present it more broadly over an AMA sort of session), as it’s a bit hard to convey the full scope without showing the insights we’re getting. Feel free to message me on what’s suitable and happy to…

Excerpt (1199 of 1222 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for the suggestions! It’s often tricky to figure out where to start these projects. A few years of consulting experience have taught me the hard way, that’s often best to start with something small and perhaps peripheral that allows us to learn more about how to navigate the ecosystem and then provide the next bit of help. The community health tool that’s taking shape could provide us that foundation as it allows us to gain an overview of what’s going on, identify key areas for targetted support, and most importantly, know how the initiatives that you/we undertake are impacting the community. That being said, I’m very open to having a call and exploring how we might support further. We’re also advancing a separate research project focused on Decision Research in partnership with Mission Publique (a large network of democracy researchers), and they have applied for some funding from Cosmos I understand, so that would allow us to help shape the vision for how governance could evolve over the medium to long term (the short term requiring a faster approach). In conclusion, I remain at your disposal should you desire to explore how we might support the development…

Excerpt (1197 of 1408 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Sounds interesting!

Bold question, can you create a screen recording with spoken text first? Then we can also prepare a call

I am sure there are some pretty nice community calls which we can join. Citizen Cosmos or Seedizens might be a nice one.

Here’s a quick overview

From that base, we can then do all kind of things based on the network patterns

In light of recent events , after seeing the product demo , and given that foundational tools are important for building strong structures, I would fully support this proposal. RnDAO’s work is consistently high-quality, and it would be helpful for the community to take a more methodical approach to measuring and improving community health. Additionally, the community health tool could benefit the Cosmos ecosystem as a whole, as you mentioned: danielo: We could also provide insights to not only Cosmos but also other Cosmos-based communities (currently impossible with the PoC given the number of manual tasks required). In line with what @LeonoorsCryptoman said, perhaps we can arrange a call to gather others’ feedback, and start moving toward an on-chain proposal. Here are proposed steps forward with that in mind: • arrange a preliminary call with interested stakeholders (by December 1st) • goal: determine a proposal pipeline (how can we get more eyes on the proposal, who do we need to coordinate with, when should we put the proposal on-chain, etc.) • input a last-call date for the proposal draft and share the proposal across relevant platforms, such…

Excerpt (1197 of 1878 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This sounds great!

Thank you for your support and leadership helping us move it forward

As a quick update here: a telegram group has been formed to iron out the logistical details of the proposal process (outlined above), those who are interested can join here.

I received some questions related to data privacy and sensitive data that’ll share here as they’re of public interest: Is it GDPR compliant? • The short answer is yes. We’re working with advisors from LexDAO to figure this out. GDPR is a big complex thing (the regulation was heavily influenced by big tech so they’d have a moat). It will take us some time to achieve certification status but we’re taking privacy regulation very seriously. There are private channels in the Cosmos server with sensitive information, what about those? • as the tool is based on a bot, the discord admin can simply not give the bot access to the sensitive channels and that data won’t be collected. What sort of data does the tool collect? • messages data with a focus on interactions (replies, threads, emoji reactions) as this allows us to understand the shape of the network (the organizational network analysis). And we also collect perception data through the pulse survey (respondents can choose not to reply). We do not collect any financial data nor health records data, we won’t ask you for your name, wallet, date of birth, nationality, sexual orientation nor gender.) let us know if…

Excerpt (1198 of 1227 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

danielo:

What sort of data does the tool collect?

• messages data with a focus on interactions (replies, threads, emoji reactions) as this allows us to understand the shape of the network (the organizational network analysis). And we also collect perception data through the pulse survey (respondents can choose not to reply). We do not collect any financial data nor health records data, we won’t ask you for your name, wallet, date of birth, nationality, sexual orientation nor gender.)

I am very much looking forward to a testcase of this setup. What kind of information and how it is shown in a live dashboard is something I want to play around with to get a feeling of how it can be used and what we can find with the tool.

I believe it is a field which might become much more important in the longer run when we progress, Cosmos and crypto become bigger. Having some kind of metric which shows community health or sentiment (gem of scam) will allow people to have a better judgement whether they want to join a certain project. Or community managers who see the numbers deteriorate have the tools to react earlier.

I tend to agree. I think it’s incredibly useful, especially as the organizational network becomes more complex.

will the entirety of the collected data be publicly available?

The passive data is already publicly available as it’s the very messages in discord. The survey data needs to be private, so we’ll only share the aggregate and not individual responses.
Currently, only our data scientists (doxxed and with ethical data handling training) have access to the raw survey data (anonymized).

This is more for the future, but we’re also exploring a partnership with Maastricht University so their data science students can use the anonymized data for projects and provide insights to the communities. If the partnership comes to fruition, we’ll then invite Cosmos to opt in.

You’re most welcome to come hang out with us for the UX/UI meetings. I’m also open to do 1-1 with those interested.
We’re hosting regular sessions in the RnDAO server, so you can just join and say hi in intros and I’ll orient you :

Join the RnDAO Discord Server!

Check out the RnDAO community on Discord - hang out with 781 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

so this is a proposal for funding to develop surveillance tooling for the cosmos across platforms? How do you plan to motivate participation? I dont find pulse surveys appealing at all. it sounds like you are pitching the addition of pop-ups to the user experience. Your proposal is entirely unclear what your proposal is going to provide the cosmos. it defines Community Health = health of its community and its vibez…what does that even mean? danielo: ike many others, Cosmos depends on the health of its community and its vibez—yet understanding and measuring these factors (what we call Community Health) is challenging. You say you are currently in week 5 of roadmap, then below, claim you are in week 9. danielo: (the work has already begun and we’re currently in week 5 of this roadmap) Week 1-8 (completed) • Literature Review • Data Collection Tool PoC Week 9-12 (we’re already at week 9 of this roadmap) • Finish Data Collection Tool Development • Data Collection Tool Implementation on Discord I dont think I would vote for increased survailance of the cosmos and its participants, especially when i dont see any basis or metrics…

Excerpt (1197 of 1294 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Would agree with the above. What are some of the likely benefits for the Cosmos community? “Vibez” is great and all, but the sum you’re asking for is not insignificant. What would the Cosmos be able to do with the data that your project might be able to provide?

Hey, thanks for raising these points. Really important to clarify! Defining Community Health is itself a lot of work (we know that number of members in discord or the number of messages are just vanity metrics. But what are good metrics?!). We’ve already been at it for some time, and you can read about our progress so far here . This article is a work in progress so part of the grant is to validate that this is a good framework, in practice. So the question you’re asking is part of the deliverables. Also, I’d invite a difference between surveillance tooling and community analytics. One thing is mapping the behavior of a specific person (e.g. like Karma does for reputation). Different from that is getting aggregate insights (not disclosing the behavior of any specific individual but overall patterns and trends) so that the community can know what to focus on. The difference is the same between disclosing that an individual voted in favor of proposal X vs disclosing that 55% of the population voted in favor. If you see our framework in the article, we’ve identified a series of key areas that determine a community’s resilience, sense of ownership and participation, well-being,…

Excerpt (1198 of 2777 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey @saint.Ericus, please see my answer above and let me know if you still have any doubts or concerns. Happy to answer if so!

For me this remains a very interesting test to do and see what comes out. The amount of funding is not enormous imo and worth a gamble.

If it proves successful then it will be a very powerful tool for the complete ecosystem and people to analyze a project based on community engagement. This can be converted into opportunities to make projects more successful.

Interesting, I post because, things being as they are, i have command of no force that could precede the causal links preventing me from doing otherwise. are you asking me how i behaviorally justify why i posted?
my participation in pulse surveys would be motivated by a contempt for the unsolicited inconvenience.
why would this be funded during a bear market?
the composition and disposition of the community could change in the time it takes you to make up a definition for community health.

oops, did i just guess a bullet point in the follow up proposal after you make no meaningful contribution to the definition of community health?

Hello everyone!

We have an initial call with @danielo today, December 7th about this proposal. If you would like to join that call, the information is as follows:

Time:
December 7,
7PM GMT (11 AM PST)
you can use this website to easily convert to your own timezone.

Place: https://meet.google.com/cpk-tgek-dob

Purpose:

• understand the value proposition of the community health tool
• plan the proposal process and timeline particularly in regards to:
  getting more eyes on the proposal via twitter and a live event; determining a last-call date for the proposal (when the proposal will be put on-chain)

cc: @common_spelling @saint.Ericus

oh, if that’s your interpretation I probably miss-explained.
For clarity, I’m not challenging your motivation to post. I actually appreciate your feedback (albeit contrarian to the proposal it raises great points for discussion).
What I was trying to suggest is that in the same way the forum can be an avenue to express an opinion, so can be a survey. Different methods work for different people.
You’re making me think that the feature to opt-out from receiving future survey prompts is something we should prioritize and make sure we have before launching, so we’re not repeatedly messaging those who don’t like it.

Hello everyone, this proposal has moved to the last call status, and will be put on-chain on the 12th of December. Important If you are interested in joining a twitter space event that discusses this proposal, please fill in your availability here . Here are the meeting notes from our initial open call on December 12th. [December 7] Open Call Notes Attendees: @danielo (RnDAO), @Youssef (Cosmos Contributor), Katerina (RnDAO), Worker Bee (Osmosis Support Lab), @lexa (Hypha Worker Co-operative), @LeonoorsCryptoman (Validator), @ala.tusz.am (Community member), Akshay N (Community member) TLDR • This call served as an opportunity for the community to ask questions about the proposal and for @danielo to work with the Cosmos community to understand proposal next steps. • It was decided to put the proposal on-chain on December 12th. • FAQs have been appended to the original post in accordance with community feedback. Full meeting notes Overview • About RnDAO: RnDAO is a DAO platform that focuses on DAO and organizational projects. There are currently two projects relevant to Cosmos related to RnDAO: • Community Health • Deliberation Process This call is…

Excerpt (1198 of 4792 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I won’t make it today, but interested in the outcome! Can you post the summary again?

Interesting, have you been looking with technologies like Desmos to create an “on chain” one that could interact in any ecosystem?

I would rather prefer a real on chain solution using tools of the ecosystem that just changing to something at the end the same…

why would this be funded during a bear market?

the composition and disposition of the community could change in the time it takes you to survey people (who might be answering just to fuck with your survey) and make up a definition for community health.

StakeLab: I would rather prefer a real on chain solution using tools of the ecosystem that just changing to something at the end the same… Actually, I don’t see much of a reason why building an on-chain community health tool would make sense. For example, in my analysis on Proposal 82 , I found that there were over 36,000 telegram messages sent about the proposal, much of the discussion took place on twitter, and on the forum. That’s all to say, most of our governance activity takes place off-chain. Additionally, what is currently a $30,000 spend for a pilot of a community health framework would become much more expensive if built on-chain, and work has already begun on the project. If the pilot goes well, perhaps we would like to see the workstream continue, or eventually move to on-chain solutions, but imo it is totally unnecessary for a pilot. common_spelling: why would this be funded during a bear market? Community exists and interacts regardless of market conditions. Perhaps with a methodical approach to improving community health, when more people start joining the community in a bull market, we will be more equipped to on-board them into a…

Excerpt (1197 of 1228 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

additionally to what @ala.tusz.am mentioned, a really important thing to understand a community’s health is benchmarking. And benchmarking against the same community (i.e. historical data) is often the one that provides the most insights.

It will take time to develop the framework and technology, then to implement it and have the insights. So if we want to have the ability to understand what’s happening during the bull market, we’ll have to start before that.

ala.tusz.am:

Community exists and interacts regardless of market conditions. Perhaps with a methodical approach to improving community health, when more people start joining the community in a bull market, we will be more equipped to on-board them into a healthy and vibrant community.

what benefit would improving community health and its vibez do? community health is a meaningless concept, this proposal is funding to make up a definition for community health.

community health could be how many wallets are in profit vs loss or subjective feelings of wellbeing held by community members & self reported on a survey. imo its not worth the continuous funding requested in either case.

It seems like they already have a pretty good idea of what community health is, beyond just “subjective feelings of wellbeing.” Have you seen the work they’ve done on the framework ? common_spelling: community health is a meaningless concept I would say that community health is certainly not a “meaningless concept” given that poor community health can lead to contributor attrition, groupthink, lack of ability to attract new contributors, and ossification (an inability to change or innovate). Arguing that community health is meaningless is like arguing that organizational health is irrelevant. In fact organizational health has implications on every aspect of an organization’s function, in the same way that health effects our biological functions. Healthy organizations are more productive, and more innovative and this feeds into the bottom-line. To quote McKinsey on the subject: Working on health works. It’s good for your people and for your bottom line. Additionally, in the original post, we can see some of the applications of the approach toward community health: danielo: • Generate baseline metrics for Community Health / vibez to…

Excerpt (1191 of 2640 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

by meaningless i mean undefined. no objective metrics define it. i get that words have meaning that suggest that “community health” seems intuitive and important, but that expectation also makes it easy to pair meaningful words with irrelevant or loosely correlated data based on the small sample size of a bear market.

ala.tusz.am:

This is untrue, this proposal is funding the creation of a research-backed, open-source tool that can be used to methodically analyze and improve community health, the importance of which I’ve outlined above.

how would the tool analyze and improve community health?

does google being able to advertise to you based on eavesdropping improve consumer health?

Check out Q4 of that framework I linked above, it outlines which metrics can be used to define community health and how they can be used.

ala.tusz.am:

Have you seen the work they’ve done on the framework?

Screenshot 2022-12-11 at 17.45.211203×782 191 KB

Benchmarking and baseline analysis are crucial to assess the impact that inputs have on complex systems. The google analogy is not relevant because they are not trying to improve consumer health and they also don’t anonymize the data they collect about your profile, though from your example you could deduce that having sufficient amounts of data about inputs in a system enable targeted action which drives some end-goal… So, maybe if google really did want to put their data to good use to improve societal health instead of act as a parasitic layer driving a consumerist society, they could. But I digress…

looked at framework, it is just vague generalities surrounding the typical connotation of the words “community health”

most of it sounds exactly like what map of zones already does.

the proposal is a an open question asking if community health can be objectively constrained to yield useful information that will correspond strongly enough with “community health” that action can be taken and requests ongoing funding to check.

danielo:

FAQ

What kind of insights can this proposal deliver?
Although part of the work is precisely figuring out what metrics to use and which to discard, we’ve already spent significant time developing a framework to define community and community health and will use this as our starting point, further refining with feedback from the community.

given the huge number of variables that could effect this underdetermined “community health” metric, the proposal incentivizes continued vague generalities over deliverables. the proposal repeatedly mentions that is its intent.

danielo:

Will this proposal have a continuation?
This is very much the start of what could become an ongoing workstream of research and action.

The deliverable is a community health assessment. To get there we need to finish translating the conceptual framework into practice, which can’t be done well without data. And for that we need the data collection tool and basically the rest of the work of the proposal.

This is research precisely because the exact shape and feel of the output can not be known in advance (unless we use some vanity metrics like the number of users, but that’s pointless). We have to try multiple avenues, iterate, etc. And only then we can deliver the exact metrics.

That being said, our research so far leads us to “sense of community” (this is a construct that has extensive research done, both in terms of its impact and how to assess it), and a few network analysis metrics like small world index (also with extensive backing). Both are referenced in our paper. Then again, we believe in doing this properly and not jumping to easy conclusions, so first, we need to run this project.

I thought you need indexing for that. AFAIK, the indexing on Desmos was planned to be done by Bostrom. Unsure what happened of that story

Twitter space for the proposal tomorrow:

Cosmos Hub ⚛️

I would agree with @common_spelling that the framework is largely nice-sounding academic rhetoric at this point. I think for the community to fund this, some clarity would be good. I don’t see why the community should fund the actual development of the framework for you. But it would be different story if you already had a working service to offer, i.e. “we have this tested framework, here are our previous results/reports, would you benefit from quarterly reports on this?” Then I think this would be a lot more attractive.

For clarification, please. Have you seen the video of the dashboard prototype above?

We already have a working framework (and already did a report for Aragon and MetaGame), but that’s not the same as validated. Validated means we have really tested it, which requires data, which requires communities to partner with us… until we have at least 10 and can correlate patterns across, we’ll still be in draft form.

But even at this early stage Aragon had this to say:
“RnDAO’s Community Health Report helped us understand the overall feeling of our members towards our Community and the kinds of interactions happening within it, bringing to light hidden problems and providing us with the insights to take the necessary actions.”
Incandenza - Community Guild & Core Contributor at Aragon

MetaGame is sharing a tweet about it this week…

The issue is still that meaningfully assessing community health is a huge challenge, so there’s still a lot to do both conceptually and practically. The grant goes towards advancing that and getting the insights for Cosmos.

danielo:

We already have a working framework (and already did a report for Aragon and MetaGame), but that’s not the same as validated. Validated means we have really tested it, which requires data, which requires communities to partner with us… until we have at least 10 and can correlate patterns across, we’ll still be in draft form

sounds like you should be paying us for our data.

I might vote for this if the $ATOM from the community pool went to users in exchange for their survey responses.

We only collect the data that directly allows us to provide insights to you as a member of the Cosmos community. We have no use for your data other than helping the community (i.e. you). We don’t sell the data; we don’t use it to advertise anything to you. So it would make no sense for us to pay for it.

Now, if you want Cosmos to pay for the individual community members giving their data, that’s something we could explore moving forward and I’m curious to flesh it out. I’d suggest making an additional proposal to request incentives and we can discuss it there?

How will cherry-picking data points quantifying the level of group think pervading the cosmos help the community (i.e. me)?

That’s fair enough @danielo, then I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying this and your prior collabs. To make myself perfectly clear: on the whole I think the idea is good, and pretty well-timed in the aftermath of ATOM 2.0. Could be some interesting synergies to explore with (if accepted) the other proposal coming out of RnDAO ([Proposal ##][DRAFT] {After the Big Bang: A constitutional process the Cosmos Hub}) and the works of Validator Commons. But again, would be cool to see some of the results from your work with Aragon and MetaGame beyond the quote you provided.

If anything, it is a good idea to introduce and leverage prior academic research in relevant social sciences etc. Blockchain governance needs more of that.

Normally with proposals I try to remain as neutral as possible. But because this one directly affects discord, and because its part of my role to manage things there, and keep the community safe. I feel I must speak up about key issues surrounding this proposal, and why I don’t think its right for us at this current moment in time. After the community call yesterday, I approached the team to ask some questions and raise some concerns. **You can read the discussion from the telegram group t. me/commhealth From this discussion I got the impression that this was less about what was best for cosmos, and the community, and more about furthering their goals and their research. This was more evident by how many other projects they had reached out to for funding. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but if they care less about where the funding is coming from, then do they have our best interests at heart? I think these unique metrics look good on paper, but I also believe they could do more harm than good. e.g. Draw more attention to negative energy surrounding certain proposals that could damage our image as a whole. Every project goes through its rough patches, drama surrounding…

Excerpt (1199 of 2982 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you Alice for your comments. Please allow me to clarify our intentions: our primary goal is to enable healthier communities. That’s indeed different from an exclusive focus on Cosmos but it also aligns with Cosmos. And we want to provide insights for Cosmos specifically, both from a theory and practice/strategy perspective. I hope you agree with us that collaboration across ecosystems is important. Then, although indeed the discord data atm is limited and I know you’re doing great work to reorganize during a bear market, and I understand that us generating some form of KPIs can create some fear, let me share a bit more about the rationale we have: the insights will only make sense over time, meaning that a previous point for comparison is needed. So although building a community takes time, and especially during a bear market, the tool can actually help you identify areas to focus on. Any good assessment is not about bonuses or rewards/punishments (although that’s unfortunately common in web2) but about insight, learning, and strategy. So starting now would mean providing you with a tool to support your work of building community. This will also create transparency for…

Excerpt (1199 of 2696 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you. Unfortunately, we’ve not been permitted to share Aragon and MetaGame results publicly. At least not yet.

We’re collaborating on drafting a twitter thread with MetaGame to share some of the insights, which I was told goes live tomorrow. If it helps, you’re welcome to follow them on twitter and only vote after seeing the tweet. I’ll also link it here once it’s out.

Group think leads to bad decisions and ultimately poor performance, so addressing it would lead to a healthier cosmos community and, in turn, to better atom price thanks to the success of the ecosystem.

If, say we identified a lot of group think, then an initiative could be created by the community team or community members to address that. The tool could also measure whether that group-think-reduction initiative is successful or needs iteration.

Link to live proposal:

Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

Thanks for your reply, Daniel I agree that collaboration across ecosystems is important. This is cosmos, our goal is IBC adoption. I can understand the use cases for all of this in theory, and being able to compare data with other ecosystems is valuable. I understand how insights only make sense over time. But I don’t think we need a bot to tell us that traffic is low, things are moving slowly, and everyone is depressed because of market conditions, and a very close result on a recent governance prop. Furthermore, If its something the community desires I could utilize bots like dyno and Formeer ( top. gg/bot/992500626548334642 ) for less than $200 a year to send out automated commands and feedback forms every 2 weeks to survey our users opinions, and have them react with emoji’s to gauge how they are feeling, Formeer has a dashboard for this already, and for dyno I could spend a few hours manually translating this data into metrics, which I can later submit as a blogpost, and then every 3 to 6 months analyse and compare all the data of previous months. I think there are plenty of web2 solutions that I could work with to measure community health. I’m all for empowering web3…

Excerpt (1199 of 2656 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, at least that way we can discuss I’m feeling frustration seeing this compared to dyno or statbot, as 1) those have their own database so the data is within their control. And more importantly 2) that’s reducing our project to a bot. I understand the community is not fully developed yet, I understand the data in discord is limited. We’re also at an early stage and have a lot of work to do. What we’re proposing is embarking on a journey together. The bot is a tiny part of that journey (it’s just a tool to collect the data). And although we agreed to start with public channels, we had already discussed in telegram the possibility to expand to other channels (after proving it’s safe, which we can easily do). And we discussed some of the applications like being able to identify which teams are likely to be high performing and which ones need support, identifying misalignments between teams, etc. And the above is just from the passive data (discord messages). Because the richer dataset comes from the pulse survey, that’s where we can put in context what the community is doing. So even if there were 0 messages in the public channels, we…

Excerpt (1196 of 2273 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

And the deadline is because that’s what we had agreed on the call we had with multiple community members. We converged on the 12th being a good date so we put it as last call and wanted to honour that. Then we struggled for 48h figuring out how to put the proposal on chain, and it was a developer colleague doing that, so they hadn’t event seen your comments.

As we had met your request to allow you to see a sample of the data collected, etc. to make sure it was safe, I couldn’t see any reason not to move ahead with what’s already been a very long process and prohibitively expensive time-wise, when other than @common_spelling, the community was showing us good support.

Hi Daniel, I’d like to state that I am not comparing you to dyno, statbot or any other discord bot. I am perfectly aware that what you’re proposing is much more than that. I’d like to think I understand your ideas for the future, and I 100% agree, some of those ideas are great. But I’m struggling to see your passion for us, and the community. I feel like we are just another one of many projects you’ve reached out to for funding, with no real second thought to who we are, and what we’re building. Here’s how I understand our current community health: It’s a bear market, its not exciting, every project is getting hit hard, there is less engagement, and the majority of people in this space are either miserable or indifferent. Those that are indifferent have been through all of this before, they have a deep belief in the tech, and they know it will get better eventually. But right now, the core feelings are doubt, fear, anger, and uncertainty, and I think while its obvious to everyone, its not exactly something we want to put under a magnifying glass. I think this research would be amazing for your team, I just don’t understand how it would benefit us. You keep telling me that if…

Excerpt (1197 of 3405 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Let me push back a bit on the bear vs bull market, as I feel it’s missing the core ingredient: analyzing community. Not just sentiment (i.e. vibez, mood, etc.) but an actual sense of community. Activity will increase in a bull, sentiment too. Burnout might go either way (and it’s good to check), need satisfaction can also go either way and it’s good to check. But most importantly, sense of community can go either way too. Bull markets are not necessarily good for community. The noise and influx of people can actually weaken it. And it’s a lot harder to see because the change in vibez (general mood) can obfuscate this. As the bear starts to kick in, members who were consistently active can also get dragged elsewhere as it’s shiny new opportunities everywhere. And because community managers and mods are also dealing with the rapid increase in activity both in the community and generally in the industry, it’s really hard to notice until people have been gone for 3+ weeks and by then it’s likely too late. Bulls drive the hyper-financialization of everything. We want to prevent that. We want to be ready to show what’s important, to show that hype is not everything. To be able to…

Excerpt (1198 of 1361 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m all up for proving that this is not a selfish proposal. But how can I do that? We’ve been having a lot of discussions with people talking about the multi-chain nature of Cosmos, but that doesn’t affect the current proposal. If anything, it works even better in this scenario, as network analysis is very suited to that. We’ll still have to start with the Hub and then expand, but that’s a matter of starting somewhere and then developing the initiative, not a matter of the initiative being unfit for purpose. We’ve been talking a lot about the relatively low number of messages in Discord, and we’ve insisted that shouldn’t change the choice of platform as the other platforms - Discourse (the forum), telegram, etc- wouldn’t work well for the pulse survey which is key to measure sense of community. We also mentioned we have plans to include Discourse and twitter ASAP, and, still, from what we can see, the best starting place for this proposal is Discord. We have put throughout the proposal that the idea is to work with the community in the research and refinement of the tool and metrics, so we have every intention to collaborate but also know that said collaboration has costs…

Excerpt (1196 of 1599 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Is this related to the 4 council scam DAO that balance each other out, posted in another thread?

are you planning to continue your community health funding to come up with a meaningful definition for community health by using the LSM to strip delegators voting power and install a governance cabal like govmos described in his model?

No idea what you’re referring to, so I’d say it’s not related at all.
Anyhow, the proposal was shut down