Badge Discussion: "Good token"

#1

The idea would be design a badge (see the Ethfinex badge as an example) to be given for good tokens.
Those tokens could then be displayed in the top of Uniswap.Ninja (uniswap fork using the token curated registry).

Any idea of conditions you would want “Good Tokens” to fulfill?
I like Mike’s cryptosystem manifesto for that.
Perhaps we should temper the “self-sustaining” as really few projects could claim that. Even Kleros (Governor in progress, it will be once governor is up) and MakerDAO (the multisig controlled by a few actors control the system) are not “self-sustaining” yet. I just know Augur which would be self sustaining.
We could speak of “aiming to be self-sustaining”.

Any ideas?

#2

So a “reputable token” would, to me, look something like this:

  • Team/project is reasonably transparent (open source, good documentation, financial statements, frequent updates)
  • The team is engaging on social media (Telegram, Slack, Rocket chat, Reddit, Twitter)
  • The token’s purpose is useful, innovative and brings additional long term value to the ecosystem.
  • The token, founders or project owners in no way imply that the token is a good investment or brings money.
  • A reasonable effort is made to interoperate with other projects in the ecosystem (ERC standards, collaborations, hackathons)
    * The token is not airdropped solely for promotional reasons.
  • The project is backed by some reputable crypto VCs.
  • The are active research efforts on relevant topics to the project.

Of course it’s hard for a token to have all of the properties above. These are just some ideas that I came up with. We should try to formulate only “measurable” requirements.

#3

Thanks for your input @martijn.
A few remarks:

  • Why would you want the project to be backed by a reputable crypto VC? Backing by anonymous angels, community or with a team working on it part time may not be bad either.
    Crypto VC is a possibility, but not the only one.

  • Why require uniqueness of purpose? I’m all for reusing cryptoeconomics which works.

  • Why would airdropping be bad for a token? If it’s to be used, putting it in the hands of users seems good.

#4
  • The points I made are not hard requirements but rather a plus if they meet the requirement
  • I guess unique is the wrong way to describe what I meant. Innovative would be a better choice of words.
  • Airdropping is not bad necessarily. I’m yet to receive any airdropped token that is not spam though.

Also these were just some ideas. Nothing of an proposal yet.

#5

I’ve made this doc to formalize that: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KVgSmuR3zKpOlKlvDmHBoQNaWLLxOz5__FQygAOgyUE/edit#