In the previous iterations of the SCF, there were two rounds of community voting — a nomination round and a final lumen allocation round — and it required a lot of effort to participate in both. Voter fatigue was a real problem.
Moving forward, a panel of judges will handle nomination: they’ll vet all applications, and choose 3–5 projects (in the case of the Seed Fund) or ~12 projects (in the case of the Lab Fund) for inclusion in the final lumen allocation round. The nomination panel will filter out potential scams and technically weak or unachievable entries, and will present a strong and consistent pool of projects for community vote.
Who they are
The nomination panel consists of a 10-person selection from a jury pool made up of Stellar Development Foundation employees and key Stellar community members. The panel will be a 40% SDF:60% community team that nominates projects for the final quadratic community vote.
How they’re selected
The panel judges are the members of the
scf_panel Keybase team, a roughly 50-person mix of SDF and key Stellar community members. Unlike actual jury pools, participation is voluntary for a given round. If a member is selected and opts out, names will be drawn again until a full team is assembled. Selection will happen via Keybase’s
What they do
Judging an SCF round is a serious task, and we expect members to be fair and responsible, and to opt out if they don’t have the time or bandwidth to do a good job evaluating projects.
Panel members must be objective, realistic, understanding, and respectful, and must keep the differences between the Seed and Lab funds in mind when judging. They should act as mentors, ask questions, and suggest improvements. We’ve left a lot of time for submission and review, so panel members should pace themselves, discuss projects with entrants and fellow panel reviewers, and put in the effort to build relationships and foster success.
Now that we have a solid panel of judges electing the best projects, it’s safe to open the voter participation floodgates: no more Keybase verification, no more weird caps and limits on votes, just one week of SMS verified voting open to the whole wide world.
A key component of the new community vote is a new system we call a flaggable quadratic voting. Community voting as it stands today is one-dimensional, and tends towards a linear distribution that makes it impossible to recognize — either positively or negatively — exceptional projects. Quadratic voting adds velocity to votes, which better captures community sentiment and enables the community to help police bad actors and thwart manipulation.
How it works
In a quadratic voting, votes cost credits. You can vote for a project more than once — in fact you probably should if you feel strongly about it — but each additional vote costs more than the one before. The curve is quadratic, hence the name.
1 vote (1*1) = 1 credit
2 votes (2*2) = 4 credits
3 votes (3*3) = 9 credits
9 votes (9*9) = 81 credits
10 votes (10*10) = 100 credits
100 credits give a voter a max of 10 votes for any single project. In addition to upvoting, you can also downvote a project.
A possible problem with this system: it still allows manipulation by a malicious majority using all their credits on a single project. If the suspect project started to steal the competition, everyone else would be using their votes not to communicate their feelings for the projects, but to counteract the malicious activity. Our solution: a simple flagging feature that costs credits (though not as much as a vote). Communicate the sentiment of your flag either positively or negatively, then mark an entry with a flag.
The report function allows you to flag an entry for review by burning a few credits, and then to carry on knowing that you’ve done your part to keep things fair.
Try it: Flaggable Quadratic Voting Demo