$RARI Rewards: program completion and feedback request

Today is the final day of the current $RARI Rewards program! It was an exciting 4-week journey with 420,000 $RARI distributed, many wins and learnings. Read the recap below – we are looking forward to your feedback on how to make the next rewards programs even better.

Let’s start with wins:

We have successfully increased our market share in two collections chosen for the rewards program: Ledger Genesis Edition and Nyolings. At one point, 35% of Nyolings GMV was traded on Rarible. That was the intention behind the program and these cases proved it successful.

Highlighted in red is the share of the Nyolings collection traded on Rarible for the duration of the rewards program

You can see that in Nyolings’ case, a significant amount of trades happened on Rarible during the week it was part of the reward program, but the numbers decreased after that. For the Ledger Genesis Collection, on the other hand, Rarible showed a large increase in traded volume during the rewards program period, and kept a portion of it after rewards stopped. The fact that Ledger was part of the rewards program for three consecutive weeks might have impacted this result.

Learnings:

The biggest lesson we learned from the current $RARI Rewards program is that selection of collections can massively degrade the performance of the program.

  • Best results happened when the Rarible team chose the collections

  • Doodles and other expensive collections didn’t perform even when Rarible chose them

  • Rewards turned out too high for cheaper collections and it impacted floor price

Potential improvements:

When analyzing these and other results, we came up with several potential improvements:

  • Have a trending board showing which collections are being voted on, but leave the final decision to selected (or voted) members of the RARI DAO community.
  • Decrease the amount of $RARI rewarded, while increasing the length of the reward period from 4 weeks to 2-3 months.
  • Increase the lock period requirement to 3 months.
  • Decrease or Increase rewards amount based on project’s floor price
  • Decrease or Increase rewards amount based on floor bids, instead of listings

Closure:

Rarible Protocol is changing its focus into building and supporting community marketplaces.
Bringing the rewards program to community marketplaces can be a good strategy to help increase liquidity within the protocol.

We’d love to hear what members of the Rarible community have to say about these results and your thoughts on how we can make our rewards program even better. Do any of the proposed ideas look good to you? What would you do differently?

Leave a comment below and let’s chat!

9 Likes

i agree with all the potential improvement points. it’s unfair too see project with much lower floor to get the same rewards

1 Like

I think the potential improvements suggested are good ideas. I would like to suggest the floor bids should be within a % of the floor price to be eligible for rewards. If we are going to reward bids, they should be high enough to stand a chance of being accepted.

3 Likes

The improvements sound good.

Initial thinking is something simple like having settings on your trending board that let me glean as much information about the validity of each collection involved. Seeing its past history of votes so I can more equitably distribute my voting power. I want as much information as possible to determine what seems fair. Things like join date, how many listings and sales in the last 24 hours/other durations.

Give collection owners who are also rari holders the ability to opt-out of being voted on for a length of time. I’d also like a way to show my voting history on my Rarible profile page. It will help me connect with others who have similar tastes as me. I think there should be some kind of incentive for listings, but it would probably need to also be based on how long it’s been since you’ve listed anything or how long it’s been since you’ve sold anything.

2 Likes

Doodles and other expensive collections didn’t perform even when Rarible chose them because rewards need to be higher for projects with a higher floor price.

Increase rewards for projects with a higher floor price asap.

it’s unfair too see a project with much lower floor to get the same rewards

1 Like

Congratulations everyone on the completion of the first rewards programs!

It was a good pilot with lots to learn from. I believe with some small tweaks, we can make the next one even bigger and better for everybody.

Below are my comments on the teams list of “several potential improvements”:

Have a trending board showing which collections are being voted on, but leave the final decision to selected (or voted) members of the RARI DAO community: I personally think that this change alone is enough to restructure the entire program for the better (even if no other changes are made). I found the biggest problem with the previous rewards program was that low quality projects with low volume could be voted in, which created a bad environment that could be easily manipulated. It would be great to have some sort of volume ranking source that displays the top 50/100 projects or something, and then veRARI holders could vote in 5 from the list. There will still be low quality projects within that list because there are always trending meme projects and soft rug projects, but the most important part is that no single person can vote in some zero volume rug project that they already hold 200+ of which allows them to control supply since there is virtually no demand for it anywhere.

Decrease the amount of $RARI rewarded, while increasing the length of the reward period from 4 weeks to 2-3 months: I don’t see any downside in spreading out the inflation, and creating a longer time period for users to be incentivized to trade on Rarible. I believe that the 7500 $RARI listing rewards per day can be decreased while still creating lucrative listing incentives.

Increase the lock period requirement to 3 months: This is a beneficial change that most people should be okay with. There should actually be a option when you claim where you can select any time period. I could imagine that some people would like the option the increase their voting power above the default amount.

Decrease or Increase rewards amount based on project’s floor price: This is by far the most difficult category to optimize effectively. We have to be careful with this one in regards to high priced projects. A very minimal increase might be okay but we should avoid increasing rewards proportionally. Just because the floor price of one project is 10x the price of another, it should not mean that the rewards are 10x as well. The reason it’s bad is because it will gate out 99% of the community that don’t have that much capital. Whales could essentially just vote in very high priced projects that they know most people couldn’t afford and they would have very little competition when listing. Ultimately this would be bad for on-boarding new traders, adoption to Rarible, etc. On the other end of it, there does need to be an adjustment/solution for rewards given to low priced projects (As seen in the previous programs, traders are willing to drive down the floor price for low price projects because the $RARI rewards outweigh the potential loss in value of the nft). This problem can potentially be solved with the proposed idea to decrease daily rewards and increase the length of the program. Overall, there needs to be a middle grown where projects with 0.05 floor don’t get outsized $RARI rewards but at the same time projects with 10 eth floor don’t get too much rewards that it creates an incentive to gate out the less wealthy (believe me, if the incentives were there, some individuals could easily make 4 out of the 5 projects all 10 eth+ floor).

Decrease or Increase rewards amount based on floor bids, instead of listings: I personally think giving out rewards for bids is a bad idea. People could essentially just make bids everywhere with no vested in any projects and have very minimal risk. People could just place their bids a little bit further out so they don’t get executed and then farm $RARI by using WETH while having zero vested interest in the NFT, which is kinda broken. The current buyers reward program is surprisingly very optimized already. It does a good job of increasing buyer incentives because royalties are reimbursed with $RARI rewards. I saw many instances of people arbitraging on different exchanges and just collecting the $RARI rewards while breaking even on the rest of trade itself. The buyer rewards also incentivized people to undercut more often then they normally would because if their listing got purchased, they could just repurchase the floor again at barely any lost cost (except gas fees). Of course this is great because it’s a mechanism that encourages actors to spot market inefficiencies and capitalize on it, thus increasing volume. The only thing I would comment is that for this to be effective the buyer rewards actually have to ALWAYS BE ACTIVE for the top 5 listings… not sure why some projects got 0% buyer rewards even though they had royalties.

1 Like

Good ဆုများ နောက်ထပ်ခွဲဝေပေးသင့်တယ် တချို့သောသူတွေက အကြောင်းအမျိုးမျိုးကြောင့် ဆုရသင့်လျက်မရသောသူတွေကိုအခွင့်ရေးပေးသင့်တယ်လို့ထင်ပါတယ်

1 Like
................zczczvzbzb shbsbxbxb snsnxbxhs

$RARI Rewards program aims to bring more liquidity into the protocol by incentivizing listing below the floor of available supply on other marketplaces + introducing rewards for buying.

From the 4 weeks of program completion, it can be seen that collections were voted with the strategy to maximize farming of $RARI points. By having illiquid collections, it’s much easier for reward farmers to hold their strong position on earning points.

Voting/Selection:

I believe collection selection shall be eliminated from the voting process, by automating rules and triggers.

One of the options is to connect trending collections with the rewards program. When the collection is trending on the market, it gets enough fast liquidity to bring volumes to rarible. Allocating rewards for listing/buying with Rarible will allow getting a hand on a trending volume and ultimately capture liquidity/listing after the rewards end for the specific collection.

By having an agile rewards collection selection, human inefficiency can be eliminated, allowing the market to decide where to provide rewards to capture volumes and liquidity.