---
# System prepended metadata

title: Untitled

---

#Decentralized SDG Impact

## Case 4: TEC Praise System (Team 11) 
#### Data Repository: https://github.com/CommonsBuild/IH-intervention

## Data
![](https://i.imgur.com/R3SY8cx.png)

![](https://i.imgur.com/DEwp6g4.png)

![](https://i.imgur.com/bK3NWgO.png)


#### Reflection questions:
* Descripe the tools & process you used:

Want to raise the question if Excel though data visualization may sufficient in standard tools such as PowerBI or Tableu to have clarity on distribution that is easily digestible and not overengineered.

* Any challenges / difficulties (i.e. dataset issues, definitions):

Unstructured data as there was no established categorization at the oneset. Quantification was conducted without a clear methdology. 

* Is there any raw data missing that might be interesting to analyze?

DAO's are digital architecture that are intended to incubate and nourish resilient communities. The design of DAO architecture and its value allocation system can act as an enabling environment for equitable inclusion that optimizes the sustainable development of that community and the greater communities in which it interacts. The TEC follows the principles of Elinor Ostrom and thus rewards systems should have Ostrom best practice in the design. 

In an updated TEC Praise data strategy the following data points would have provided a more granular view of the Praise system in support of a fair, equitable and consistent distribution.
- Working Group Identification
- Category of work (i.e. Comms, Development, Design, etc.)
- Deliverable and project identifier
- Supporting Praise (validated by others)
- Qualitative aspects it supports (i.e. Culture, Motivation, Inspiration, etc.)
- Priority and weight of Praise
- Spend limits of Praise giver
- Budget of allocated Praise pool
- Users provided targets (goals and areas for improvement that allows personalized areas for personsal growth)

* Which datapoints do you think are relevant to measuring system health?

Allowing for qualitative measurement in a quantitative manner that is viewed by the community as fair, equitable, consistent and representative of the community values that it supports sits at the core of any successful rewards system.

As Praise is ultimately calculated into Impact Hours that have financial implications it should be viewed as a community resource and therefore Ostrom's principles on how that scare community resource is managed should be applied.

The value of Praise should be consistent. This could be supported by an ontology and an accompanying methodology that measures that aspects that the community values in a manner that is equitable and inclusive. 

## Taxonomy considerations for token engineering rewards systems in labor DAOs 
![](https://i.imgur.com/KEyFjJJ.png)

## Evaluation of TEC Praise on Elinor Ostrom's Principles
- **Clearly defined boundaries**
    - Praise resource (xDAI) available to Praise appropriators was not defined at the onset. Post hoc vs. ex ante. 
    - Who had access to appropriate Praise resources was neither based on eligibility criteria or delegated formally by community through an established process. Self appointment vs. due process  
    - Specified community of benefit (targeted rationale) for Praise allocation undefined.
- **Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions**
    - Guidance note on Praise that would be validated by TEC community 
        - Methodology of Praise
        - Guidance Note Categorization of Praise
        - Guidance Note Quantification of Praise
        - Data Strategy
- **Collective choice arrangements**
    - TEC Priase was retroactively modified through collective choice (Snapshot vote) which allowed for post hoc choice but not ex ante community driven policy
- **Monitoring**
    - Compliance with rules that can be monitored at low cost and performed by members of the community in transparent ways requires that the rules are clear. Here the monitoring mechanism is strong from a transparency perspective but the rules upon what is being monitored are not firmly established, thus compliance is assessed against what standards. 
- **Graduated sanctions**
    - Similar to monitoring the issue of graudated sanctions requires that there are clear rules upon which can be broken. However, as Praise had not set criteria it would be hard to escalate to a graduated sanctions mechanism unless there was some egregious behavior that would break general principles (self-dealing, fraud, collusion, etc.). 
- **Conflict resolution mechanisms**
    - The Praise system implementation in the TEC Hatch did result in some community dispute. The resolution of this dispute was not channeled through Celeste as similar to graduated sanctions and monitoring there were no written rules upon which resolution could be based. Instead a vote was taken through Snapshot that did not adjudicate the dispute but mediated a consenus oriented solution. This has benefits for post-hoc solution but does not address the ex-ante prevention of conflict.
- **Minimal recognition of rights to organize**
    - In this regards there is much praise for TEC Praise as it is very individual based. However, this right of autonomous organization comes with it the obligation that the other Principles of Elinor Ostrom establish so we 
- **Nested enterprises**
    - Praise was fully decentralized and not in nested enterprise which would have aligned more with established working group structures, community inititatives, etc. 

## Risk Assessment 
- Unsustainable appropriation of community resource Ostom's non-compliance
- Misalignment of Praise with community desired outcomes
- Reward system incentivizes low value activities
- Game theory negative feedback loop on dissent and discourse
- Prone to collusion hacks and other self-interested misappropriation 

## Theory of Change - General process
![](https://i.imgur.com/uhiMcSE.png)

##  Schematic Depiction of Theory of Change Implementation
![](https://i.imgur.com/Vszb9oC.png)

## Data Driven Praise System Considerations
- Measurements in TE Commons
    - Deliverables
    - Submission Targets
    - Activity Time
    - Value Contribution & Validation
    - Community Prioritization & Weights
    - Risk Matrix
    - Ethos Alignment Indicators
    - SourceCred Compatable 

![](https://i.imgur.com/vP0qmjs.png)


## Considerations for Safeguarded Mission Rewards Align with Ostrom's Principles
- Defined budget of Praise, sub-categorized by Working Group or other community decided category structure
- Community endorsed Praise policy with methodology for Praise giver selection, Praise appropriation and allocation, compliance monitoring, and evaluation of results. 
- Appointment of Praise allocators and quantifiers through participatory community mechanisms (i.e. nominations, vote, etc.)
- Rights and obligations of delegated Praise appropriators, quantifiers, recipients defined 







