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


AIP 31 proposes an amendment to AIP 15 specifications:


“A balance of at least 1000 sAST is needed for an AIP submission for voting to be made.

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. The reward can be shared with coauthors by setting the amount before submission.”

AIP 31 proposes to amend the above to:

A balance of at least one quartile of the median staking value is needed for an AIP submission for voting to be made.

If the AIP is voted on and rejected, a reward of 2000 sAST is paid out by the treasury to the main author. If the AIP is voted on and accepted a reward of 5000 sAST is paid out to the main author. The main author may recognize up-to 5 co-authors. Nominated co-authors may receive up to 1000 sAST per nominee if AIP passes vote and 400 sAST per nominee if the vote is rejected. Co-authors must have AIP eligibility status to be nominated


Change 1: Minimum balance of sAST for AIP submission eligibility

The threshold for AIP submission should be linked dynamically to the first quartile of the median staking value. In this way we ensure 75% of the community is always eligible to make AIPs and ensure authors have a long term interest in Airswap governance. Should there be a need in the future to change eligibility requirements this can be done via a configuration vote.

Change 2: Co-authorship rewards

A number of AIPs have been voted on and more being drafted. We have had a chance to test the current rewards system. What has come to light is that under the current system the simplest AIPs that require the least work and collaboration receive the maximum reward benefits. The AIPs that require more work and collaboration receive less rewards - under the current system 5000 sAST must be shared between the author and co-authors.

If we want to incentivize AIP creation to solve complex issues - which by nature require more work and collaboration - then we need an updated way to reward authors and co-authors.

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