What projects should be supported?

・ Please note that it may not be possible to convey the correct expression because it is via a translator.
・ This issue is very biased because I will talk from the perspective of the creator who is listing the project. Not everything is right for me, and not everything needs to be what I want. This is a reference opinion.
・I won’t list individual project names in this topic, and I don’t know the background why that project is in that situation right now. So far, I have no complaints about the support gathered for my project.

(Main subject
Currently, I feel that the amount of support for listed projects lacks fairness.

Let me give you an example. More than tens of thousands of DEVs of support will be gathered for products that have never been committed and development has stopped since the beginning of this year. Even if they have hardly committed since the listing, a large amount of support has been gathered through public relations activities. The creators who launched valuable projects for these are not very gathered because they are new and have low communication power.

The usefulness of open source brought about by the project (the amount of pull requests and the number of people who use the product purely), and the degree of contribution in the sense that the product is increasing the number of participants in the DEV economic zone through public relations activities. I will ignore it here.

In my opinion, what Stakes.social wanted to achieve was to create continuity for open source projects.
I believe that products that are not under development, have no further progress using developed products, have no progress in activities, and have no contribution to the DEV economic zone should be considered finished or completed. Recall that projects that went public after development could be completed without the need for Stakes.social.

The introduction has become long, but based on the above, I will summarize the problem and propose improvements to it.

(Issue and countermeasures

(1) It is difficult to understand if you do not look at github whether you are developing.

→ Add a function to visualize the development progress on the project list page and project details page. Commit line graph, commit history, new commits, etc.

(2) The hypothesis that investors are not interested in the future of the project because the APY does not change no matter which project they support.

→ Make APY fluctuate depending on the activity of the community in the development or project page (although it is very difficult to create logic and algorithms that everyone can be satisfied with …)

The above is an opinion that ignores the cost of implementation. Please forgive me.
Thank you for your cooperation.



We need progress in development, but we also need a medium for sending out information that allows us to see if there is any other traction, and it would be easier to understand if the community could work with that. It would be easier to understand if the community could collaborate with it. Currently, it is not possible to have discussions with product developers.



Here’s what I posted yesterday on telegram, it just adds some samples :slight_smile:

Hello frens,
I was wondering if we could improve how we select who we stake on…
We already have the ‘karma’, but, if possible, what about having these kinds of indicators :

  • implication/involvment :
    check the DEV badge’s presence on project’s github, scrape tweets frequency mentionning $DEV / @devprotocol
  • github activity :
    count github’s commits, downloads, forks. A ‘stable’ project would have less commits, but probably higher number of downloads.
    The goal is to avoid to stake on dead/inactive projects, and rewards active projects that are promoting DEV Protocol.
    Of course, new projects should be highlighten for some days…
    This could be adapted to youtube (if this could happen one day…) and so on… :-)`

The community having power to choose is, in my opinion, the solution. Stakers are rarely fooled, once they see that a creator isn’t developing or is just ‘abusing the system’ they’ll just move their DEVs out to another project.

Few points that make stakers reaction harder:

  • In early stakes, like it is right now, many use Dev to invest, so they’re somewhat indifferent to the Creator doing nothing, unless it’s clearly negatively impacting them (Vyper);

  • Gas is expensive, we can’t just move out our staked Dev to another project, making every reaction from the community delayed or even makes stakers unresponsive;

  • There is no competition between Creator’s, once another Vreator starts offering you more for your Staked DEV, you move your funds to his project, that would make Creator’s work even harder to attract Dev to their own projects.


I am not familiar with English or Dev Protocol.
note that.

I read the white paper.

What I saw in recent crypto-related things was impressive.
After a successful creator, the creator himself invests in a new creator
It is important to make that flow
That is.

From that point of view, the current situation is a collection of famous and popular places.
That made me feel that it was becoming more and more affluent.
So to speak, all for one.
(Since it’s okay, shut up and invest everything in me !!)

If this is the goal of the Dev Protocol
Isn’t there any problem in the current situation?

No matter how good it is, it cannot be maintained without popularity.

In addition, the current situation is the beta version.
Originally it seems to be a mechanism in which the supported side prepares some kind of reward
I also felt that such a mechanism is difficult in the current OSS system.

On the contrary, if it is a one-for-all route
I feel that some improvement is needed.

It ’s easy to come up with
・ Set the maximum number of stakes for each project
・ Set the maximum reward amount for each project
Burn DEV to break through the limit
Mechanism such as rank up by measuring the amount of activity

・ Limit the amount that one account (address) can stake
Relaxing the stake amount limit for multiple projects

・ Introduce something like a level on each of the project side and the support side, and the more the level is different, the higher the reward

Anyway, one of the problems at hand is the soaring GAS price!
I think there is.
Both stake and quit are expensive.
I feel that this is a high threshold for rethinking the support destination.
Is it possible to change the stake destination without using the GAS fee?

For me
Creators supported by 1000 people
Become a creator who supports 1000 people
I thought it would be nice to have such a mechanism.

(Isn’t there something wrong with that?)


"If not, make it. "
The true value of DAO is that it holds true in the community. This is the first case since the start of DEV where HiÐΞ is practicing it.

1 Like

How, it was already discussed. I apologize for not checking telegram every day. Thank you for sharing your valuable opinions.

Yes, as you say, stable projects are often beneficial to the world. I think that my opinion will finally be complemented by considering the number of downloads and the number of forks.

I also agree with the opinion that a “start dash program” is needed.

The problem we are talking about is something that can happen in the future.

1 Like

“Staker is rarely deceived”. I think so, too. In fact, at the beginning of the support, the promising one should have been selected from several options.
After that, it can be understood that the reaction will be delayed due to the migration cost and the frequency of checking the development progress.

“There is no competition between creators”. I agree with this too. I tried the system around this time. As I continued to develop the space I was working on, the community noticed or wondered about my commit. However, the result was rather reduced at about -3000 DEV. LOL
I said “I see.”

1 Like

Gale, thank you for your opinion.

“Flow of creators investing in creators” I think it is important to create this as well. Where does the support money come from? The answer always starts outside the community. It would be nice if the support received could be shared among those who should receive it.
In fact, I’m thinking of investing the creator rewards I receive in HiÐΞ if I can afford more. This is a great thing.

We cannot deny the fact that the competition is now popular, and I feel the need for it. In Telegram, imoyearn says, “There is currently no answer,” and that’s right. Balance is important.

Your improvement ideas are very unique. If the gas bill can be improved, setting the upper limit price of the support amount will help to create a mechanism to evenly support other projects. Burning tokens will be a wish for everyone, and the rank-up system will provide incentives for the project to run on its own.

Let’s continue to think together over time. Thank you.


I understood that the main purpose of this proposal is to solve the issue that common creator APY is unfair for active and contributing projects.

And behind this is the challenge that even inactive projects can collect staking.

On the other hand, there are cases where even inactive projects need support. The metrics of a project in its true seed stage, or a project that has grown tired, may be inversely proportional to its value.

From that hypothesis I like an approach that solves, as pdot says, by concentration ratio of staking. It is very simple, and simplicity prevents vulnerabilities and improves software engineering availability and maintainability.

However, it relies on low gas fees on L2. Fortunately, this is the year, in my opinion, that L2 will make significant progress.

I believe that DIP-55 will also help curb active but malicious projects.

This is not my final decision. I’m going to give it some more thought.


To what extent will the recently passed DIP 55 be successful?
Depending on that, the measures will change again.

1 Like

Variables for each project should also be considered, but we can do some prior to that.

  • A statement of the kind of relationship the creator and supporter want to establish
  • Show what milestones the creators are aiming for and how much they want to raise to achieve them.
    Inform updates and news
  • Communicate with creators and sponsors

It’s based on community agreements, so it can be casual.

1 Like

I like this, I think that stakers need to be given a good level of information of what they are supporting and so can make their own decisions on whether to keep supporting that project or not.

1 Like

I would like to see something like different tabs in the about section that can be customized (turned on/off or edited)

  • show github activity (and how to enable this for NPM registered project)
  • show project goals
  • show news tab

Also it will be good to have more types of links / generic links
Example: medium, dev.to, https://www.nerdfortech.org/

1 Like

To take this topic forward, we have started a discussion about the criteria here.
We hope you will join the discussion! :slight_smile: