SourceCred distribution for week ending August 29th, 2021

The weekly SourceCred payouts are here! A hosted instance of SourceCred running on the Maker forum can be found here.

For details on opting in, see Opting in to Sourcecred/Wth is SourceCred?.


:warning: WARNING: :warning: Cred scores and payouts may see volatility in the coming weeks and months as we tweak the algorithm and payout parameters. We still have a lot of work to do before the system is optimized enough to “ossify”, producing predictable payouts.


This week $5,000 worth of DAI was distributed to 107 contributors. Navigate to the DAI Accounts tab of the Maker instance to see your current DAI balance and total DAI earned.

Cred Stats

Below is a chart showing total Cred created (a proxy for work).

Top Contributions

Below are the top 10 posts created last week, ranked by Cred generated.

Top Contributors

Below are the top 10 contributors last week, ranked by Cred generated.

Cred Contributor
200.5 PaperImperium
169.5 Derek
144.8 ElProgreso
140.2 Aes
135.8 MakerMan
132.7 christiancdpetersen
129.4 SebVentures
126.1 prose11
121.8 g-dip
97.3 twblack88

If you have any questions or concerns about the scores, data or presentation thereof, please don’t hesitate to ask!


@s_ben have you guys thought about applying sourcecred over github along with forum?

It’s been brought up a few times. Rough consensus was that it was best to keep to Discourse for now. In part because devs have a different compensation structure already, and combining SourceCred with other forms of compensation can be tricky. You can do it but it adds complexity, some technical but mostly political. That said, it’s been a while since we revisited this, and open to exploring it if there’s interest from the community.

Essentially, I am thinking where to strike a balance between quality and quantity. While the forums have been good for discourse (agreed, a lot more politically oriented than work-related), I think the community at large is doing higher “qualitative” work (on average) outside the forum. Github is a significant place, though not the only one, where more of that work can be appreciated, but also followed through as there is a consistency in the thread of actions in version control, as opposed to hyperlinks in forum posts.

1 Like

Interesting…are there specific examples of work on GitHub you think would be good to reward? When I originally pitched SourceCred, I created an instance for mcd-cdp-portal (warning old, depricated version). I chose that because it looked like a typical active dev repo. Are you imagining code contributions like this, or governance-related repos?

Re: version control, we don’t currently flow meaningful amounts of Cred via commits. We tried in the early days to just use git, but we got much better results when we incorporated richer data from GitHub. You can find more details in the GitHub plugin page of our docs, but Cred mainly flows via Issues, PRs, PR reviews and comments.

I have noticed that the number of contributors has dropped as in previous weeks, I don’t know why, I see the forum very active, what do you think it is due to?

1 Like

The delegates??, perhaps by having a representative, my opinion can be more effectively directed to decision-making. Idk

1 Like

While I’m not here as much as others here, I do try and keep a pulse on contributors through monitoring SourceCred and reading. Some pure speculation:

  • Just a seasonal dip? Work everywhere tends to slow down in the summer, as people go on vacay. Also, I follow the total Cred created pretty closely (a proxy for work), as SourceCred’s performance is largely judged by engagement. A handful of times since we started, I’ve noted similar dips, and wondered if we were going down :grimacing: But if you zoom out, every time it’s just kept going up. I don’t think we should rest on our laurels, but the uptrend may resume :chart_with_upwards_trend:

  • Competition? There’s an explosion of DAOs now. Flipping jpegs of rocks for millions of dollars is fun :sunglasses: Maker also has a lot of prestige. Working here can increase your options, and lots of DeFi money is chasing a small talent pool, as has been discussed in the comp threads.
  • Environment? DAOs can be pretty combative and adversarial at times. Which can over time lead people to collaborate more in private channels. CU contributors may just be naturally finding the best way to work. Also, some coming from more corporate backgrounds may find a more decentralized environment doesn’t work for them. I think Maker is generally benefitting from its relatively professional and civil culture, strong moderation. But even the best DAOs can be traumatizing at times. Still lots of unsolved problems.

Again, pure speculation. Curious to hear any ideas you might have Saludiego. May even be able to check it against Cred data.


Ultra bullish Source Cred. Up Only!


The Source creed already looks like the Bitcoin haha

What if SourceCred was a Proof-of-Labor (PoL) consensus mechanism and you’re the miners :wink: ?


If we would be the miners who would take those hashes (work) to a good port, a collaborative and decentralized work towards the single goal. Maker Success. :wink:

Sorry for not replying, I was on several issues, I see this too bullish hahaha.

I also see how week by week the quality improves to quantity.

I try to contribute to the forum, but as everyone here has other responsibilities and there are few hours that I can connect to collaborate in the forum of the most important protocol for me in the world.

1 Like

@s_ben There are a few governance related channels (e.g. MIPs etc) where a lot of the “deep work” is done and coordinated.

Both code and governance related contributions with rich data would be amazing. Issues, PRs, reviews and comments all have a role to play in creating “constructive work”.

There are a few reasons why I think github and other workplaces “nudge” the community more towards productive/meaningful outputs, as a complement to forums:

  1. Focus is more on work outputs. E.g. A new MIP, a new suggested process, a new piece of software, an enhancement to any of the existing
  2. Focus on building/improving together. While a forum post on a new initiative usually either attracts ovation or criticism, it is much harder to measure true willingness of parties interacting to help each other by improving the underlying together. Whereas, in github at least the parties can play a more “active” role by submitting an issue or raising a new PR, which demonstrates that aim of actually giving constructive input (sender) and willingness to focus on improvement (receiver).
  3. Focus on strategic aims rather than tactic gains. It’s fairly difficult to connect the dots between the various initiatives of teams across forum posts. Whereas the “historical” aspect of git gives an insight into how “deep and meaningful” initiatives evolve through time and how much hands-on contribution and collaboration they really rally around.