Introduction to PoCoP - Temp check v2

1. Introduction

PoCoP (acronym for Proof-of-Commitment-Protocol) is an innovative way of remunerating users for their direct or indirect contribution to the promotion of indigo Protocol. The Cardano blockchain is an ecosystem of enthusiasts guided by a committed community. We think it’s an interesting idea to be able to thank the community for its efforts and commitments. The members of the POG have therefore been looking for an innovative and decentralised way to allow everyone to participate freely and without constraints in the efforts that contribute to the knowledge of the protocol. We came up with the original idea of PoCoP on the Ergo blockhain and in particular Ergone, which already uses this mechanism that we try to adapt to our needs.

The idea would be to allocate a certain amount of INDY tokens each month to content creators, whether they be tweets, videos, educational content or other original proposals. Content creators log on to the Indigo PoCoP portal and submit their content. Moderators check that the content is not spam or duplicate, and that it meets minimum quality requirements.

At the end of each month, content creators will have access, via the Indigo interface, to additional rewards for helping to democratise the protocol.

To encourage perseverance, a notion of karma will enable content creators to accumulate more rewards month after month.

2. Action plan

We want to launch a 4-month POCOP season during which 500 INDYs will be distributed per month, with a limit of 100 INDYs per person.

The moderators will rank the content on a scale of 1 to 10, and a hardcap based on the score will be applied to the payment for the content. Level 5 content will be worth 5 times more than level 1 content.

The moderators will initially be members of the POG, and then we will re-evaluate if necessary. They will assign a score to the content, then an average will be calculated and the score will be rounded up.

Hard cap for content according to its rating:
1 : 1 INDY max (content with very limited added value, price prediction, etc.)
2 : 3 indy max
3: 6 indy max
4: 8 indy max
5 : 10 indy max
6 : 15 indy max
7 : 20 indy max
8 : 30 indy max
9 : 50 indy max
10 : 100 indy max

On this basis, each creator obtains a sum of scores that will be used to define the share of income to which he or she is entitled.

We defined a maximum amount that a user can receive. The hardcap is used to limit the rewards if there are few entries. If there is a lot of participation, the rewards are shared equally, with content rated 10 counting 10 times more than content rated 1.

Karma: To encourage continued or at least recurring participation:

Each user gets a percentage bonus equivalent to their best rating for the month. In this way, the best possible bonus is 10% for a user who has created a very-high-quality pieces of content.

This percentage accumulates month after month.

3. Access to PoCoP

We want to add a link to PoCoP to the existing user interface (see Figure 1).

This new website ( see Figure 2) would act as a link between the X, YouTube etc. accounts, and allow users to connect a portfolio to retrieve the information needed to pay content creators.

Via this PoCoP portal, each user will be able to post the content they have created, alerting the community to the work they have done, and allowing moderation to take over.

Moderators will be able to consult the various ‘proofs of commitment’ of each creator and rate them from 0 to 10.

We would like to add a rewards line in the “Portfolio & Rewards” section of the interface, where users will be able to collect their looks every month or every 6 epochs.

Fig 1:

Fig 2 :

4. Limits and developments

To avoid getting bot and creating accounts for the sole purpose of collecting rewards, each Twitter account must have a minimum of 100 followers, whereas other platforms require 50 subscribers.

It’s possible that after each month, the reward calculations will be made public before being distributed, so that the community can double-check the moderators’ work.

The aim of this project is to make Indigo shine by rewarding active members of the community.

5. Transparency and ethics

The moderators will initially be members of the POG and, as they are already paid, there is no need for them to be paid.

Also, in the interests of transparency, we will display on the web interface a list of the wallets that have been remunerated by the PoCoP and the quantity of tokens received.

This concept has already been discussed here : Indigo PoCoP - Proof-of-Commitment-Protocol
This version 2 has been designed as a simple, effective prototype to test the idea. Depending on the reaction of the community, it may not last, or it may be improved to better serve the interests of the DAO.

Thanks for reading, sharing and discussing.


Love this proposal and am excited to see this PoCoP launch if its gets DAO approved. Great job POG :clap:t2:


I really appreciate the POG taking into consideration all the opinions from the original PoCoP Temp Check. I think this is a great starting point. All for it.


I’m a bit confused about the specifics so correct me if I’m wrong:

  • Members of the community submit any number of content pieces per month
  • Those content pieces get ranked and the users score is the culmination of the ranks of each of those pieces
  • The funds (initially 500 INDY/month) is divided up (somehow?) between the contributors (500 INDY * their score / all scores?)
  • There is a cap for how much each individual receives based on the score of their highest rated content piece

Level 5 content will be worth 5 times more than level 1 content
…content rated 10 counting 10 times more than content rated 1

I think it would be simpler to just say each piece of content gets a rating and the users score is the sum of all of their ratings.

In this way, the best possible bonus is 10% for a user who has created a very-high-quality pieces of content.
This percentage accumulates month after month.

When you say “accumulates” do you mean cumulative or multiplicative?
A user had content pieces over the last 2 months with maximum scores 10 and 5. Their total score this month is?

  • 10% + 5% = 15% greater
  • 1.1 * 1.05 = 1.155 or 15.5% greater

Your rewordings are correct.

For the last 2 points.
First :
If you average the scores, you don’t need all the moderators to vote on all the submitted contents.
If you add up all the scores, it “forces” everyone to vote (if someone is on vacation, etc… it complicates the voting process).

Second :
For example, if a user shares content rated 10 in month 1, and another content rated 5 in month 2, he gets a 15% bonus (i.e. cumulative).

Is this any clearer?

Thanks for your questions :slight_smile:


So the user’s score is simply the average of their submissions, not their best?
Or are you saying that if a moderator votes on a user’s work then they have to vote on all of that user’s content in order to take an average for it to count?

If it’s the first, then this seems odd as you would think that submitting additional content, even if it were lower quality, wouldn’t harm your score, but it does if you average.
Person 1 submits 2 items: the first has a score of 5 and the second has a score of 10
Person 2 submits 1 item: it has a score of 10
So then Person 2 gets rewarded more than Person 1 even though Person 1 submitted an equal quality piece and more?

If it’s the second, then that seems a bit burdensome on the moderators as they’d have to review all pieces from a person and can’t just review certain ones. It also allows for more bias in the reviews because the reviewer is actively considering that all of the pieces are from the same author, when the “most fair” reviews would be blind and the reviewer doesn’t know who submitted the work.

For example, if a user shares content rated 10 in month 1, and another content rated 5 in month 2, he gets a 15% bonus (i.e. cumulative).

This gives long term submitters an enormous advantage when it comes to rewards, which can disincentivize new participants. I think that there should be a cap. Something like a maximum 25% bonus or limit it to the cumulative bonus from the past 3 months.


There are in fact several different things, thank you for your questions, let me clarify:

  • the rating of a given work ( attributed by the moderators ), for example if there is a moderatorA who votes 6 and a moderatorB who votes 4, the work will be considered as having obtained a 5 ( the average of the two votes ).
  • a user’s overall score will be the sum of his or her work’s scores (over a given period), thus rewarding participation for quality as well as quantity.
  • finally, the karmic score, which is determined by selecting the best score, forcing persevering users to aim for qualitative work above all, which will be more profitable in the long term.

Since we’re going to be keeping an eye on PoCoP, I don’t think it’s necessary to add a hardcap % to karma. If there’s an imbalance, we can correct it in the next version, but I do think that a user who obtains good scores every month deserves an advantage: it would be a real value for protocol, and we need to succeed in keeping him working for us.


Alright so

  • Each work has a score which is an average of the moderator’s ratings.
  • Each user gets a score which is the sum of those averages * karmic bonus.
  • Karmic bonus is the sum of the user’s best scored piece for the month over their entire history (no caps), with 1% per “point” scored.

The hard cap for content rewards is then per user or per work reviewed for that month?

1 Like

Hard cap is by content, just to garantee a minimum amount of work for the DAO.


Good work all! We appreciate the feedback, questions, and patience while we get this out.