$DEGEN

🧵 3/3

TL;DR: Staking and incentives should exist, but they should not be linked to having allowance.

If the token is to grow and the target is people who stake 1M or more, these people who are not in the game today due to lack of time will have an incentive to enter the game with less effort. That's it, isn't it?

The coolest thing about allowance is curating interesting people, whether they are well-articulated individuals or people doing interesting projects within the community, thereby improving and strengthening the entire community. Those who come in with money and little effort won't have the time or patience to do this curation (with rare exceptions) because they simply don't do it today.

These individuals need to get into the game and have incentives, but that shouldn't be the definitive factor in who should have allowance.

I understand the value of curating interesting people, but relying solely on Farcaster reputation isn't ideal. Linking allowances to staking ensures that those who have a vested interest in the project's success are receiving the incentives. This approach promotes commitment and long-term growth.

If we base tip allowances on Farcaster rank, aren't we just paying influencers to promote us? We want new users to get involved over time, starting with staking and eventually producing great content. Think about Nouns—should non-Nouns members manage the Nouns treasury? No, that wouldn't make sense.

I think there's a middle ground here but I understand your decision to go completely one way for now. 

Have a feeling you'll come to this conclusion though by the end of July that some social rank mixed in with the vesting can be weighted in the calculation for allowances

But as they say... Let's let it cook