Q: How many Phases are there to Impossible Futures?
There are 4 phases.
Voting: This decides the 12 apps that go through the next phase. The finalists. This is decided entirely by the community.
Backing: This is where the community can back projects by locking up ANT for 12 months, and get a share of a 1.5 Million ANT pool if they successfully deploy. It also helps determine which apps win the grand prizes, of which the backers get a share too.
Deploying : This is where the app builders complete and deploy their apps onto the live network. If they successfully deploy, the backers will get their share of the pool, and the app will be in the running for the grand prizes
Adjudication: This is the final phase to where a panel of judges determine, in part, the grand prizes winners. The prize winners will be determined based on two main factors:
60% weighted based on the amount of backing the app garners, and the number of unique backers
40% weighted on subjective criteria determined by they judging panel
Q: How much does it cost to vote?
Each vote always costs less than 1 ANT. The exact price is determined dynamically based on how many votes an app had in comparison to others. More popular apps will cost more to vote for than less popular apps, but always less that 1 ANT
Q: Do I get anything for voting?
If you voted for an app that successfully makes it through to the final 12, then you get 1 ANT per vote you cast.
Q: Do I get anything back if I vote for an app that isnāt in the top 12?
No, you donāt get your vote cost back.
Q: Is there a judging aspect to Phase 1, or is it 100% down to voting
Phase 1, which determines the final 12, is all down to voting. There is no judging panel during this phase, judging is just for the last phase to help determine the grand prize winners.
Q: How many times can I vote?
You can vote as many times as you like, for as many of the projects as you like.
Q: Iām one of the builders, can vote for my own project?
Sure!
Q: Whatās to stop someone waiting until the very last minute and casting lots of votes for a project?
This could happen, but weāve built in a mechanism that ramps up the cost of all votes as voting concludes. This is to both encourage you to get stuck in and vote early, and also to reduce and limit the variability towards the end. It would also make it much more costly to jump in at the last minute and cast lots of votes in an attempt to game things.
Q: So who should you vote for?
We encourage you to vote for projects you genuinely believe ināconsider their potential contribution to the ecosystem, their societal impact, feasibility, and the strength of the team behind them.
Canāt change it now, people will just have to own their decision. I was also hoping a few prominent community members saying no might make the team consider options.
Developers will be free to publish a donation address and reports of progress just as loziniak is doing whether they get through IF or not. Maybe we just do that instead.
The projects that get the most votes will proceed you are correct. The voting system is in place to give the community a say (by buying votes with ANT) on what they want to proceed. If you do not like the process we have presented, donāt feel the need to participate. Iām sorry if you donāt like this approach, but this is what we will be moving on with for this initiative.
I fully believe that the team is now too far in the Impossible Future to make any last minute changes to how the voting system works. However, I do notice that lately the team is making certain decisions that are really out of touch with the community and how they feel. Is there any chance we can go back/swift to a way where ideas are communicated with the community first to gather feedback before the team commits and works everything out? I think it would be greatly beneficial to the way the community feels, but also to event participation and engagement.
Tagging @Bux for visibility as well as I think itās so important for this project to have a happy, healthy and thriving community.
Edit: And to add to the above. That does not mean we should endlessly debate ideas as there is no way to please everyone. But at least dip your toes in the water and gather some community feedback and adjust where necessary.
Itās sad to read some of this stuff. I know it will be read as another occasion when the community is seen as hostile to the team. Thatās a shame.
Perhaps the team could float some of these ideas to the community ahead of them being decided? I suspect some of the frustration surrounds that. The community is a great resource and I hope the team can see that as an asset to be tapped for help.
Iāll still be pitching my IMIM blogger app for IF regardless. If it doesnāt get through, Iām sure Iāll still end up working on it regardless!
When in fact its the management team failing to run it past the community and then expecting us to clap like happy seals, no matter how iffy the idea is.
For the avoidance of doubt, I and everyone I have talked to is 100% supportive of the devs and they only want to see what is best for the project.
Pitting community members against each other for projects that should mostly work together, NOT in competition is hardly the projects finest hourā¦
Thereās been a divergence within Autonomi for over a year now thatās at the root of this, followed by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the communityās reasons for criticism.
They constantly take the view that this is about money. Hardly any here put that first IMO.
It could be they think everyone else will, and they might be right, but itās self fulfilling if all the promotion is aimed at places where that attitude is dominant.
Regardless, that is not a reason to treat us as if we put money above the fundamentals, or to paint us as thinking they are evil, bad etc. because we express views theyāve not considered.
I am baffled as to why this is the case, or what other explanation there can be for this?
Iāve given up trying to explain this to Autonomi, because even David appears unable to see the integrity of the community. They see us the way they wrongly say we see them. WTF is going on? IDK.
As ever I remain supportive of the original aims of the project Iām even able to be convinced that ERC-20 is a necessary bit of strictly temporary scaffolding.
Doesnāt mean Iām going to fall for all this āMarket knows bestā pish though.
Iām not against the idea of āvote-with-your-walletā! Having voters with skin in the game absolutely makes sense. My specific concern is how the incentives are aligned here:
The structure where votes cost <1 ANT but return 1 ANT for successful projects creates an arbitrage opportunity. A voter with access to enough liquidity can back a leading project late in the game (e.g. at ~0.99 ANT/vote) and secure a guaranteed profit (0.01 ANT/vote). With 1,000,000 ANT, thatās 10,000 ANT profit with zero actual risk or conviction needed.
IMHO, this incentivizes voting for short-term profit over long-term project viability. ā This is my concern!
Regarding the suggestion to ānot participateā if I have concerns - frankly, I found that disappointing. When I signed up for IF, it was based on the call to build a proof-of-concept. I made the decision then to commit at least two weeks of my time to create an actual, working PoC. Iām now about one week into development, and itās actually going well so far. This project is something Iāve wanted to build for a long time (in one form or another), but wasnāt really feasible before Autonomi. I also think itās very complementary to what the Autonomi network needs right now, especially in increasing the demand side.
Walking away from this because of issues with the process would be a shame.
Anyway, Iāll keep on keeping on and build the PoC for my project.
.
