AIP 31 - Amendment to AIP 15 Specifications (AIP authorship rewards)


AIP 31 proposes an amendment to AIP 15 specifications:

AIP 15: Incentivise Improvement Proposals (Author Incentive) Proposal Discussion (AIPs)

Specification in AIP 15

“…If the AIP is voted on and rejected a reward of 2000 sAST is paid out by the treasury. If the AIP is voted on and accepted a reward of 5000 sAST is paid out.”

AIP 31 proposes to amend the above to:

“…If the AIP is voted on and rejected a reward of 800 USD (open to discussion) equivalent in sAST paid out by the treasury. If the AIP is voted on and accepted a reward of 2000 USD (open to discussion) equivalent sAST is paid out. The exchange rate will be the spot price at the closing of the voting cycle.”


AIPs are for new strategic directions and project proposals with budgets, teams, and timelines. Since AIPs are tailored towards long term direction and growth of the platform the rewards are tailored as such (eg with a stake). When AIP 15 passed the vote, the project was young, the community small, and the price of AST was lower. In retrospect, a ‘perky rewards system’ was a way to entice people to collaborate and build a community - and it has worked. Furthermore, AIP 15’s rewards system predated other ways to contribute and earn - ie. bounties.

The pegging the rewards to USD ensures:

  • That all AIP ideas are valued equally over time - regardless of the variation in value of AST
  • It brings in-line the initial reward amounts closer to the bounty rewards scale
  • Incentivizes community participation and authorship more heavily during a bear market trend.




To be implemented by the next voting cycle.


I dont understand how this solves the issue of rewarding complex AIPs. Simply AIPs will still dominate co authors, and therefore a simple AIP can cost the treasury upto 20k AST which is ludicrous.

If I’m honest I suspect the same faces will propose AIPs and just nominate each other and accumulate loads of sAST.

I think it a worth while discussion to have on saying AIPs are worth X usd and you get paid the staked AST equivalent. I see your point. Otherwise, we might need a configuration vote to change the rewards every month or so as price fluctuates. I’m starting to lean in that direction.

Equally I have a concern that there aren’t enough authors. However the community is pretty small at the moment. AIP 31 makes it a bit easier to bring in co-authors and encourage active participation as it removes the ‘greed’ barrier from the main author and provides a ‘gateway’ to encourage co-authors to then write other AIPs in the future.

Totally agree with all thoughts.

  1. Should the rewards for AIP creation be linked to USD?
    Agree that is should stay 5k aAST reward not linked to USD
  2. Should the AIP submission eligibility criteria be changed from 2000 sAST to 5000 sAST?
    Agree that AIP submission eligibility criteria should be moved to 5000 sAST

I like the idea of rewarding collaboration, but I do agree with BeDreamin that we need some safeguards in place to prevent vote rigging (e.g. nomination of collaborators for no good reason).

The format of AIP authorship rewards, in my opinion, needs more time for discussion. The question of linking to USD is only part of the equation. Potentially, we could use the opportunity to revamp the AIP rewards structure altogether.

Don made some good points about using the AIP itself to define the budget (which includes the budget for writing the proposal i.e. the AIP reward - and have people vote to approve the budget)

Authoring AIPs that bring serious value to the system should be rewarded handsomely, effort put in detailing out the AIP also should be recognized, however having fixed rewards doesnt make sense, low value AIPs dont deserve the same reward payout. The payout has to be a parameter that gets voted on. So including the proposed budget as well as the potential impact the AIP would make in the AIP description is a MUST HAVE.

I removed the question about linking rewards to USD. I think that should be in a separate AIP.

I think they are all related, its likely that this AIP will be voted down unless these points get addressed. We cant push this thru without getting some of these details getting thrashed out.

If you remove the linking to USD from this AIP and have it in a separate one, what does this AIP actually do?

I disagree with almost every fundamental in this AIP:

  1. Why set a min AST holding at 5000 sAST someone with 4000 might have an excellent idea?

  2. As mentioned early a reward should be linked to the qualify of the AIP. Ideally an AIP should contain a costing estimate provided by a team member. That team member should also grade the AIP based on estimated impact simple scale 1-5 and the community should also vote on scale 1-5. Those two scores should be used to determine the total reward.

  3. That reward should be paid from the fee pool and be linked to USD

1 Like

This is a difficult subject.

I personally feel that AIP authorship rewards are far too high when using today’s AST price, with the payout being approx $2500.

I think it is worthwhile/useful comparing this payout with bounty rewards:

A “high effort, very high impact” bounty reward results in 100k points. Again, using todays rates, this would mean a claim of 9% of an asset in the reward pool, which is approximately $1650.

AIP effort can span the entire spectrum, and similarly impact can be less than ‘very high’ at times, so I think there’s a big discrepancy. This is without considering the fact that an AIP reward will generate an additional 5k points every 3 weeks.

I understand it is courteous to split the AIP reward with collaborators, but it is down to the author to do so.

I propose:

  • capping the reward to 500AST per person
  • allowing the “main author” to nominate:
    • up to 2 co-authors 500 AST
    • an unlimited number of contributors (with coordinator verification) who are given 100AST each.

This essentially mandates the split.

I also propose scrapping the balance threshold to be eligible for rewards entirely - I don’t understand why it exists, but the discussion predates me, so perhaps there is a good reason.

An alternative to scrapping it entirely would be to cap the reward any individual account can receive to 0.5x their AST balance.

1 Like

Yeah you made some excellent points

Maybe it is better to have usdt amount reward but payout in asts? I think other members have suggested above and I like that.

Like the reward for the aip is $1000 usd or usdt,

Date X: $1000 usdt = 2272 asts at 0.44 cent
Author gets 2272

Date y:$1000 usdt = 1515 asts at 0.66 cent
Author gets 1515

1 Like

Blockchain platforms need to understand the nuances of incentives — what they are, what they aren’t, how they work and how they can go wrong.
Incentives are what encourages communities of participants to cooperate and create the value that will ensure the success of AirSwap’s platform…I dont believe this is fully hashed out, as per the comments…however I do see a basic structure being built, and discussion has ramped recently.

Structure wise, I do see the benefit of sAST regardless of the cost associated with USD, but in simpler terms that may not be feasible down the road based on the amount of authors active at this time. Therefore I believe fees should have a higher role in payout, along with possible assistance from the treasury if need be based on current price, until it can be agreed upon.

Hm, it is very hard topic. Writing a rejected aip can be rewarded $800 and accepted aip can be rewarded $2000…

I mean that’s lots of money and we have to pay out every 3 weeks. There might be more than 1 aip every 3 weeks as well.
What if the aips ain’t that good? Who would determine which aips to vote on and is it ready for a vote?Imagine one wants to make money and just write aips and ask why their aips ain’t being voted on?

I suggest if we really want to pay this much for aips, have the community to decide if the aips are ready for voting by having a vote of at least 30% of community vote to say yes, this aip is important/good enough for this cycle vote before going to full vote.

Since we are having less revenue right now, we should really set the pay more carefully from our revenue and not be too generous. One has to stake heaps to earn $800-$2000…