ICCP for IIP-58-R - Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

[prisma salmon]

Simple Summary:
In Regards of recent events regarding survival airdrop points, I want to propose a slight change to IIP-58-R to eliminate the need of future IIPs for intrinsic oversights in the airdrop system.

Overview:

Add a fifth exception to IIP-58-R to allow ILV-Labs to correct major mistakes on their own accord without another IIP.
Examplary addition:
"5) Major intrinsic oversights of existing reward systems which endanger the integrity of the airdrop system in regards to fairness and continuity. IMC and labs together can decide if a situation falls under this exception and formulate an appropriate response to address the situation with the general spirit of this IIP in mind."

Rationale:

We saw in the last weeks that in certain situations IIP-58-R can be hindering to find a suitable solution.
With this ICCP the team should be able to adjust missions and milestones to some degree to ensure the well-being of the project and every contributor of the eco-system.

Sponsor: Ligyron | HYPE

Example:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p2SAfpxQ3_WB-9SeiNQM8ImI9FBMBLeYTVDr5N2sI3E/edit?usp=sharing

[red briar]

Are you putting no5 as an exception similar to exploits and bugs?

[prisma salmon]

yes

[red briar]

I like that it can be made an exception but I'd like to put safeguards to it.

It can be pretty arbitrary to say there's a major oversight. Confirmation and accountability should be baked in as well.

[prisma salmon]

agree, thought about that as well. Is it possible to insert a process in which the IMC has to approve of the change? It would at least be a way faster process. The last weeks showed that the dao was pretty slow in terms of resolving the issues.

[red briar]

yeah thats what I was thinking as well

Another is how do we consider major intrinsic oversight? Does Labs decide that? Does DAO? Does IMC?

[prisma salmon]

I would say labs and IMC just have to declare the situation as such and have to agree on a suitable response. The recently approved ICCP regarding revision of airdrops did nothing else, right?

I mean in the end I don't see a way to phrase it in a way which doesn't leave some room for interpretation. In the end we have to put some trust into IMC and labs.

[tidal finch]

hi ligy, i shared a draft to imc last week as suggested by blickter. hasnt got a feedback, maybe you can have a look and incorporate it to yours if you'd like
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YvFd3tAOrS_pzhntGxcpr4Af2lI7PX-y16BE7Aq7IG8/edit?usp=sharing

[tidal finch]

we dont have an official definition of exploits too. it was mentioned by team that replicating a video can be considered exploits

johnny started a discussion on whats considered "cheating" i guess prob have to define them or just let the team decide

[red briar]

Hard to define as it makes it rigid but having a 'body' to determine would be good. Ex. Labs+IMC decides what is cheating, exploit, oversight etc

[tidal finch]

yea it wasnt clear if survival points were an oversight or an exploit

[prisma salmon]

Agree, in a perfect world we would be able to get a perfect definition for exploits and oversights but in reality these definitions will most likely have oversights on their own. Therefore, leaving some room for labs and IMC seems to be the best option since the last weeks showed that IIP-58-R restricted the ability to act too much.
I would say Jags proposal is basically identical to the one I wrote. So, I don't mind which one gets approved 😄

[tidal finch]

nah, we can just go ahead with yours. i just wanted to formalize this so we have some clarity and consistency in implementing the IIPs
i just wanted to get a feedback from the imc

[prisma salmon]

Rewrote the exception to include the imc directly after your comment. Just wanted to point that out in case you missed it.