Community Coin Contest Feedback Megathread

The Community Coin Contest was initiated in Governance Period 10. 100,000 ALGO in prizes were put together by Folks Finance, Tinyman, Humble, and Pact.

The rewards will be distributed to pools of Community Coins and gALGO. Find all the rules and details in this article:

https://folksfinance.medium.com/community-coin-contest-100-000-algo-in-rewards-c3b5426ca3bd

Please use this thread to voice your thoughts on the contest, and suggest ways in which it could be improved.

Thanks!

2 Likes

Please be more inclusive.

I appreciate you thinking about the communities at all. You could definitely just have ignored them.

However, with this competition. It was definitely geared towards projects with higher TVL already.

That’s why you are seeing the winners here this round as some of the projects with the largest TVL on algorand.

Why is this? Its because they have more slush money they can simply move around to win a competition like this.

In such case a smaller tvl project like Crescendo or TacoCoin with a tvl of 20k and 13k respectively are not equipped to compete with projects like akita and chips with tvls nearing 200k and 1 million respectively.

No rocks being thrown at them of course. They are just playing by the rules set forth in this first round of competition.

I would hope you be more inclusive to smaller tvl projects because those small grass-roots projects bring real value as well.

Not just the larger tvl projects.

A 5k -10k algo reward for a project with 1 million TVL will help the project but it will greatly help the project with smaller tvl grow to hopefully become a larger tvl project someday.

Please don’t just think about the larger tvl projects. I understand the higher tvl the higher tvl comes to gAlgo and the higher tvl gAlgo has in liquidity.

But if you want to truly hold a community coin competition be ((more)) inclusive not less.

Don’t just help the larger projects become even larger but help the smaller projects have a chance to come up a bit and have some extra funds to innovate within the community and bring more people into folks finance and blockchain.

If Crescendo or a smaller project ever gets any type of small grant funding or community funds i guarantee you will see some amazing stuff happen because of it.

Being more inclusive is always better than being less inclusive.

Next round give the smaller projects a better shot at competing.

3 Likes

To level out liquidity, projects can only place on one DEX. This will separate the large projects as they will all want first place or second place and they will strategize. This will allow for 9 separate winners on DEXs. To reward the larger projects top 3 overall TVLs can get a bonus. Imperfect solutions but I just want to throw out ideas

1 Like

I would recommend not to continue with the Community Coin Contest. I understand the intent, but gALGO DEX pools are not stable TVL. gALGO’s design results in volatile liquidity - every quarter liquidity will be drained to redeem the gALGO for ALGO. A better way for Folks Finance to support community projects is to list community coins and their LP tokens on Folks Finance.

Resources would be better suited for incentivizing FolksFinance lending pools which align with FolksFInance interests, its cross-chain strategies, and with overall Algorand DeFi liquidity growth.

  1. AOA had two good suggestions for CCC:
  2. measure gALGO TVL/mcap
  • this puts big and small projects on level playing field. a project with $10k mcap but $5k TVL would have a higher ratio than a project with $1M mcap and $100k gALGO TVL
  1. disqualify project treasury wallets
  • this forces the project to push holders into the LP rather than their treasury

two interesting things to consider

1 Like

I like those ideas. The reason I think projects should only place on one DEX instead of all 3 is you will see projects pull their liquidity if they don’t have a chance of competing. $crsd appears to no longer have galgo pool and they were in 3rd for awhile with. $6k

1 Like

I had some liquidity in the galgo/CRSD pool.
I removed mine, because it was going to be hard to compete with those larger TVL tokens.
Those projects already get Algorand Defi reward boosts and farms on Tinyman.
After learning that the bulk of the $chips pool was a project wallet, it looked like there were loopholes in the rules, and the smaller TVL projects really didnt stand a chance against that.
Crescendo could have used a project wallet, and jumped up in the ranks, but we collectively voted that it wouldnt be a good move, in the spirit of the community challenge.
Team that with the rewards not really outweighing the risk, we all kind of collectively pulled out.

No beef against the other projects in the contest, I love all the projects, and have held all of their tokens before.
But on a personal level, it didnt feel like much of a community contest, as much as a contest to see who could raise the highest TVL in the pair, by any means.

I would agree that all project wallets be should be disqualified, in an effort to give actual communities a fighting chance.
The contest was a great idea, in theory, and the smaller communities could have benefited from being able to get some reward farms that the higher TVL tokens get.
Maybe next time.

2 Likes

Great season has be come ALGO

I understand the sentiment but this is a recipe for manipulation

Aside from their goal of increasing gALGO TVL, measuring (total TVL added per pair) also serves to prevent manipulation.

While more opportunities can be opened up by e.g. allowing one slot across all DEX, I can’t see how the measurement metric can change without introducing subjectivity / bias / potential for manipulation, etc.

What metric you would propose for ranking projects in this contest format?