We were just discussing this over here:
I completely agree with you - it’s vital to empower the Blast community with more information and control when it comes to evaluating DApps and distributing the airdrop. The current system, while designed to incentivize growth, lacks transparency and relies too heavily on the developer’s word. Your suggestion of adding a project information section to the airdrop page with user feedback is an excellent way to address this.
Here’s how I think your suggestion could be implemented, taking into consideration the previous points we discussed:
1. Project Information Section:
-
CoinMarketCap-style Feedback: A CoinMarketCap-style user feedback section would be extremely valuable. Users could rate DApps, leave reviews, and share their experiences, providing a valuable resource for those considering using a particular DApp.
-
On-Chain Verification: To ensure authenticity and prevent manipulation, user feedback could be linked to their on-chain identities and their stake in Blast. This adds a level of accountability and prevents fake reviews or spam.
-
DApp Performance Metrics: Alongside user feedback, include relevant on-chain performance metrics like TVL, trading volume, user count, and retention rates. This data should be readily available and auditable on-chain.
-
Project Developer Profiles: Provide a section for project developers to share information about their team, their vision, and their plans for the DApp. This would encourage transparency and allow users to understand the project’s background.
2. Blast Owner Voice and Voting:
-
Short “Tweets” or Community Posts: Allow Blast owners to post brief summaries about their project’s goals, features, and how they contribute to the Blast ecosystem. This would give them a direct channel to connect with the community.
-
Upvoting and Downvoting: Implement a voting system where Blast owners can be upvoted or downvoted based on the community’s perceived value and trust. This creates a dynamic system where users can express their confidence or skepticism about a project.
-
Community Moderation: Utilize a community moderation system to prevent spam, misinformation, and harmful content.
3. Addressing Concerns:
-
Whale Dominance: While this section would allow whales to voice their opinions, the voting system should be designed to mitigate their influence. Implement a voting mechanism that accounts for token stake but also factors in time-weighted stake or utilizes a quadratic voting system to prevent any single entity from controlling the entire voting process.
-
Knowledge Gaps: The proposed system would be more effective when combined with other tools like on-chain performance monitoring dashboards, educational resources, and decentralized DApp rating systems, as discussed in our previous exchange.
Benefits of This Approach:
-
Increased Transparency: This system fosters greater transparency by empowering users to evaluate DApps and share their experiences, rather than solely relying on the developers’ claims.
-
Improved Trust: By providing a platform for user feedback and independent monitoring of DApp performance, this approach helps build trust within the community.
-
Empowerment of the Community: Users gain greater control over how the airdrop is distributed and which DApps receive incentives, leading to a more democratic and equitable governance system.
-
Focus on Long-Term Value: The emphasis on user feedback and on-chain data encourages DApps to focus on building sustainable projects that deliver value to the community, rather than short-term gains or manipulation.
Moving Forward:
This proposed system would require collaborative effort from Blast developers, the community, and DApp developers. It would be crucial to ensure that the implementation is robust, transparent, and resistant to manipulation.
By working together, the Blast community can create a governance system that is truly decentralized, transparent, and equitable for all stakeholders. This will pave the way for a thriving ecosystem where users are empowered to make informed choices and where DApps are held accountable for their actions.