Cosmic Climb - Leaderboard for GM NFT Holders 🚀

VeBetterDAO
1

1. Introduction

GM NFT upgrades have hit a wall and there are not many people upgrading to higher tiers. Why? No clear incentive to keep spending such higher values of B3tr for example ~1M $B3tr for Uranus feels massive without further utility. Rewards are static and one-and-done, not compounding your commitment. Plus, tier value depends on how many upgrades, if everyone’s at Moon tier, higher tiers lose their purpose. My solution would be a Dynamic and Action-Driven Leaderboard, "Cosmic Climb”, a weekly on-chain ranking of top 500 GM holders by Score.

2. Objective

This proposal aims to address key points:

  • Boost Upgrade Adoption: Make higher tiers (e.g., Neptune’s 10x multiplier) a clear path to superior rewards, countering the “static burn” perception and encouraging quadratic progression.
  • More Utility to the GM NFTs: Addition of action-based payouts to the weekly payouts.
  • Enhance Network Effects: As more upgrade, competition intensifies, raising the value floor for all (e.g., a Uranus holder outpaces Moon grinders, pulling others up).
  • Gamify Sustainability: Integrate real-world impact via VeBetterDAO.
  • Governance Synergy: Reward top climbers with bonus $B3tr, deepening DAO engagement without centralization risks.

3. Ranking System

The leaderboard ranks the top 500 GM holders (scalable via future votes) based on a transparent, verifiable score.

Core Formula: Score = VeActions × Tier Multiplier

VeActions = VOT3 + On-chain verified actions (reset weekly for fairness)

  • 1) VOT3 holding on the snapshot VOT3 with a multiplier boost based on weekly on-chain activity:
VOT3 Base Rate 25+ actions this week 50+ actions this week 100+ actions this week 200+ actions this week
0 – 10,000 0.10 pts / VOT3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
10,001 – 25,000 0.05 pts / VOT3 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.1
25,001 – 100,000 0.02 pts / VOT3 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
100,001 – 1,000,000+ 0.005 pts / VOT3 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08
  • 2) On-chain verified actions: 100pts/Actions

Points are awarded per week, per wallet, and strict caps on certain dapps like Pause Your Carbon should be added to prevent dominance, namely the square root (i.e. √(number of actions in Pause your Carbon)).

  • 3) Tier Multipliers (official current weights, upgradeable via DAO):

The GM NFT held at the time of the snapshot should also be taken into the account (same time as VOT3) to prevent farming by sending the NFT to different wallets.

Tier Multiplier (original multiplier) Multiplier for the Cosmic Climb Leaderboard (Decelerating Rise) B3TR Needed
Moon 1.1x 1.00x 5k
Mercury 1.2x 2.26x 13k
Venus 1.5x 3.00x 25k
Mars 2.0x 3.52x 50k
Jupiter 2.5x 3.93x 125k
Saturn 3.0x 4.26x 250k
Uranus 5.0x 4.54x 1M
Neptune 10.0x 4.78x 3M
Galaxy 25.0x 5.00x 13M

Examples: Using real wallets with their Vot3 held and actions taken in a specific week

Table example 1 (using a simple VeActions =0.1 x VOT3 + 100 x On-chain verified actions without basing on quantity of actions taken):

Position Wallet GM NFT Multiplier Actions Vot3 Total Points
1 (a) Saturn 4,26 3 821230 351122
2 (b) Mars 3,52 0 845214 297515
3 (c) Mercury 2,26 16 467580 109289
4 (d) Jupiter 3,93 7 200000 81351
5 (e) Jupiter 3,93 0 191704 75340
6 (f) Saturn 4,26 66 98000 69864
7 (g) Moon 1 150 376000 52600
8 (h) Venus 3 9 129790 41637
9 (i) Moon 1 132 268000 40000
10 (j) Moon 1 244 8961 25296
11 (k) Moon 1 174 5800 17980
12 (l) Saturn 4,26 2 29835 13562

Table example 2 (using the dynamic point table for Vot3, which is based on the weekly on-chain activity - see table on point 1) for VeActions attached above):

Position Wallet GM NFT Multilpier Actions Vot3 1st Tier 2nd Tier 3rd Tier 4th Tier Total Points
1 (f) Saturn 4,26 66 98000 10000 15000 73000 0 57425
2 (g) Moon 1 150 376000 10000 15000 75000 276000 34540
3 (a) Saturn 4,26 3 821230 10000 15000 75000 721230 30485
4 (i) Moon 1 132 268000 10000 15000 75000 168000 28420
5 (j) Moon 1 244 8961 8961 0 0 0 25296
6 (b) Mars 3,52 0 845214 10000 15000 75000 745214 24556
7 (k) Moon 1 174 5800 5800 0 0 0 17980
8 (d) Jupiter 3,93 7 200000 10000 15000 75000 100000 17489
9 (c) Mercury 2,26 16 467580 10000 15000 75000 367580 15115
10 (e) Jupiter 3,93 0 191704 10000 15000 75000 91704 14574
11 (h) Venus 3 9 129790 10000 15000 75000 29790 12897
12 (l) Saturn 4,26 2 29835 10000 15000 4835 0 8719

In the fixed 0.1 Vot3 table (Table 1), the top six positions are all held by wallets with high GM NFTs. However, in the dynamic table (Table 2), three Moon wallets appear in the Top 5. Interestingly, these Moon holders could easily surpass the current top Saturn wallet if they upgrade their GM NFTs. This shows that the dynamic table not only incentivizes action but also encourages users to upgrade their GM NFT.

4. Rewards Distribution

Source: 2% of the weekly allocation (which corresponds to ~74k $B3TR weekly atm), this would come from the GM Pool rewards (which at the moment is 5%, and after this proposal would be 3%):

Bracket Allocations (Capped at 20/20/30/30 split for equity):

Bracket Users $B3TR Allocated (using 74K $B3TR as an example) % of Pool (Capped at) Avg/User
Top 10 10 14,800 20% ~1,480
Ranks 11-50 40 14,800 20% ~370
Ranks 51-200 150 22,200 30% ~148
Ranks 201-500 300 22,200 30% ~74
Total 500 74,000 100% -

Reward Formula per Rank (r = 1 to 500):

Distribution uses a power-law decay for smooth, monotonic tapering, no jumps, just consistent incentive.

Reward(r)=(a/r^b)

Fitted parameters for the example of 74K B3tr:

  • a (scaling factor) ≈3668.55,
  • b (decay exponent; lower ( b ) = flatter/fairer curve)≈ 0.6803

Post-compute: Scale array to exact total, round integers, add remainder to tops.

Sample Top 20 Payouts:

Rank $B3TR Rank $B3TR
1 3,668 11 717
2 2,289 12 676
3 1,737 13 640
4 1,428 14 609
5 1,227 15 581
6 1,084 16 556
7 976 17 533
8 891 18 513
9 822 19 494
10 765 20 477

5. Requirements

To qualify for the leaderboard, a wallet must meet all of the following criteria based on the snapshot taken:

  • NFT Holding: The wallet must have at least the Moon NFT attach to it at the time of the snapshot. (Note: A new wallet that upgrades its GM NFT during the week would only be eligible for the leaderboard in the following week)
  • DApp Engagement: The wallet must demonstrate activity across at least 3 distinct dApps during the week. Example: A wallet with exactly three actions qualifies only if each action occurs in a different dApp. Actions within the same dApp do not count toward the minimum.

6. Implementation

This new leaderboard would appear in the main page of VebetterDAO similarly to the round leaderboard. And this leaderboard needs to respect the signal admin. If a wallet gets signaled by a dapp, it cannot get rewards from the leaderboard, this way we can avoid bad actors from exploiting it.

7. Risks & Mitigations

One possible risk is sybil attacks where malicious users create multiple wallets to farm actions/ranks, inflating scores artificially however this leaderboard would require the wallets to get the GM NFTs to participate on the leaderboard (and higher GM NFTs) + actions/holding of Vot3.

I’d appreciate any feedback on this proposal. I believe the GM NFTs could benefit from added utility to make them more engaging. There’s also an ongoing discussion in the VebetterDAO Hub Discord, if that’s more convenient for you.

5 Likes
2

Great idea generally, and IMO part of a process to give back some value to GMs, which completely lost their sense after “restoring the GM NFT system” proposal was executed

There are some safety measures to be taken into account, like:

  • Taking a snapshot of the NFTs holdings (same time as VOT3) to prevent farming by sending the NFT to different wallets;

Also, i like VeActions taking into account VOT3 + actions, but we need to understand what we really want to incentivise. With the current formula,
1M B3TR = 100 actions

There is no silver bullet but since GM holders tends to have lot of VOT3 as well, this means the actions won’t make lot of difference for the leaderboard IMO. We should do some simulations

Also, i would probably merge the GM pool within this system, since it may become redundant
Final consideration around 6. - “Free” Farming is not possible since there is a quite high price to pay to get a GM. To “farm” this leaderboard, we will instead have more GM demand which is something wanted, since it means more B3TR locked in the treasury.

Good job!

3 Likes
3

Thanks for your feedback! I’ve just updated the proposal with the following changes:

1) GM NFTs are now officially included
GM NFTs held in the wallet at the exact same snapshot time as VOT3 will be counted. I had always assumed this would be the case, but explicitly writing it in prevents any farming.

2)Two additional adjustments based on your input (big thanks to BreakingBallz and Genesis on Discord):

  • VOT3 weight increased from 0.01 → 0.1 points;
  • The 2% allocation will now come from the GM Pool instead of the voting and dapps pool (probably people would accept it more than takin from other sources).

Appreciate you all helping make this proposal stronger! Let me know if anything else needs tweaking :handshake:

2 Likes
4

Some improvement thoughts:

  • VOT3 holding on the snapshot: 0.1pt/VOT3 –> Is there a risk of just holding VOT3 and doing no actions gets as many points as lesser VOT3 holders doing many actions? Perhaps a fixed rate of 0.1pts should instead be non linear, in that the points diminish after some thresholds are met. e.g. 0.1pts for first 5000 VOT3, 0.05 for next 10,000 VOT3 etc. This might need some analysis…
  • Should there be a qualifier to be in the top 10 - for example minimum actions threshold
  • Dormancy penalties for “set & forget” holders
1 Like
5

In faireness, I would simply replace the gm pool with this one, taking the entire 5% then

In comparison to the previous system, this simply means owners will get more rewards based on how many tokens + actions they do in one week, which makes totally sense

If you ask me, it’s a no loss, since most people don’t even notice how that pool affects their weekly rewards. That pool is simply to be removed since it provides no real visible incentive to hold the tokens

We also need to keep a good proportion between points by actions & by holding vot3 in order to incetivise both. ie either use the chain a lot or hold the tokens to get the most out of it

In case we want to scale this out even further in the future, we can simply:

  • extend the leaderboard to non-gm holders as well, and use them as multipliers for the points;
  • allocate more % of weekly allocations to this leaderboard

But better to keep this simple and see how it performs

Eventually as said, this is the way most things around rewards should go in the DAO, including apps allocations which may need a revamp as well

1 Like
7

That’s a really interesting idea, introducing diminishing returns for larger VOT3 holdings while still rewarding active participation on the DAO. After reading your feedback yesterday and @akanoce comment:

We also need to keep a good proportion between points by actions & by holding vot3 in order to incetivise both. ie either use the chain a lot or hold the tokens to get the most out of it.

…it got me thinking: what if we combined diminishing base rewards for holding more VOT3 with a multiplier boost based on weekly on-chain activity? Here’s a possible model I put together:

VOT3 Base Rate 25+ actions this week 50+ actions this week 100+ actions this week 200+ actions this week
0 – 10,000 0.10 pts / VOT3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
10,001 – 25,000 0.05 pts / VOT3 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.1
25,001 – 100,000 0.02 pts / VOT3 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
100,001 – 1,000,000+ 0.005 pts / VOT3 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08

So for example, a Mercury holder could actually outpace a Saturn holder if this does not do any actions:

GM NFT Multiplier Actions VOT3 Total Points
Mercury 2.26 200 50000 56500
Mars 3.52 50 150000 45760
Saturn 4.26 0 900000 30885

As an Example the Saturn Holder, holds 900K Vot3 but 0 actions so the total points would be:

Total Points =(10000x0.1 + 15000x0.05 + 75000x0.02 + 800000x0.005) x 4.26 =30885pts

I think this is a nice balance: it protects long-term holders while strongly rewarding real usage and activity. And whales will have to do actions otherwise they could be last in the leaderboard.

What are your thoughts on this?

3 Likes
8

I support this, but we should review the base rate. Eventually the goal is also to incentivise holding VOT3

10,000 VOT3 is quite a low amount if u hold a GM, so i would forecast most higher tiers node holding at least 100k (anyone with some data?)
So i would probably make the base rate less aggressive when holding more votes

1 Like
9

As @reheat said on discord, and I agree 100%.. The most important righ now is to fix the GM NFTs as these feel useless and there are not reason to keep upgrading. Holding VOT3 is already important for your voting rewards, that is already a good reason to hold it (this would be just a plus).

1 Like
10

the price of the GM NFTs imho is still quite high, for myself the next upgrade is $1000, but the ROI of that is 2-3 years - at the moment B3TR is volatile and that investment is risky… i would say ROI is what is holding back upgrades … its easier to sell b3tr, than accumulates for 6+ months only to have to spend ur entire earnings on an NFT.

1 Like
11

Unfortunately, pricing will have to wait for another proposal. I hear you, however the system has been feeling quite monotonous, and this proposal is designed to add some utility and break the cycle. If this proposal goes well, we can probably look at pricing and increasing the allocation of this.

1 Like
12

Late to the party here on discourse, but have been paying close attention on discord chat.

:one: - really enjoying seeing this unfold and develop- it’s great to see some life around what is a great idea for the GM NFTs

:two: - I do like that way the VOT3 count has been embraced here on discourse, on first reading it felt a nice advancement… and yet, I would lean towards weighing the proposal more towards the original focus of GM NFT enhancement. Discovering the ratio to which, GM NFT purchases were encouraged first - and then VOT3 holding played a solid but secondary factor, would be ideal.

:three: - would agree with DaveL’s comment that GM NFTs may perhaps be mispriced for mass adoption. A significant barrier might exist here.

Otherwise, enjoying watching this proposal unfold. Fair play

1 Like
13

Thank you for your feedback here and on discord. :saluting_face:

I’ve updated the proposal by adding the Vot3 table to reflect the actions taken and included real examples demonstrating that the dynamic points table for Vot3 is more balanced than the original.

I agree with the statement; however, this proposal is designed to enhance the utility of the GM NFT. If there are still concerns about pricing, we can revisit that or explore additional ways to increase their value (by adding utility - endorsement points?) or decrease their price.

1 Like
14

I love it. Finally good incentive to obtain gm nft for active users. I support this.

2 Likes
15

Will the proposal take into account actions from linked accounts to the main account where the higher gm nft resides?

17

I completely forgot to include this in the proposal as I do not use use that feature. It slipped my mind. When users perform actions on their secondary wallet, do the rewards still go to the main wallet, but the actions themselves only count toward the secondary wallet’s activity? Is that it?

I would assume the devs could implement a solution to either:

  1. Count actions from secondary wallets toward the main wallet, or
  2. Simply add up actions from both the main and secondary wallets.

The second option might open the door to abuse though, people could potentially create multiple secondary wallets to inflate their activity. What do you think?

18

The primary/linked account feature links one wallet to a primary wallets vepassport, making any action on secondary wallets only count on the primary’s actions.

So as long as it’s remembered on implementation it should work just fine id say, but i havent looked in detail at the vepassport entity linking function on its contract.

Maybe @Dan could comment on that?

19

Hi guys!

Money goes always to the account that is connected to the dapp, but the action is counted to the primary account.

Eg: I use cleanify and greencart with social login, I link those 2 accounts to dan.vet, my veworld. dan.vet now has actions and can vote in the dao, and I manually send the money I earn on cleanify and greencart to dan.vet

2 Likes
20

Thanks! So in that case my understanding is that the cosmic climb leaderboard would get the primary account’s actions just fine.

1 Like
21

@MonkeyDCrypto @reheat @Dan if this way of working continues to work in the new situation I’m fine with it because I use this function to not use my main GM NFT account in every dapp and I also have the reward multiplier NFTs from dapp such as bottle, bedtime etc setup in such a way that they are not on the main GM NFT account but the secondary account that performs the actions. I really would not want to break this setup and we have to assume other are doing it as well in such a way. Btw I did support your proposal this round fyi.

2 Likes
22

Thank you everyone the proposal got approved! :hand_with_index_finger_and_thumb_crossed: :rocket:

Just a quick note to avoid any potential confusion (as one person pointed out): During the VBD proposal submission, this was stated in the proposal change - Remove 2% from the GM NFT Pool allocation and added it to Cosmic Climb. This 2% corresponds to the current weekly percentage that the GM Pool receives (which is 5% at the moment). Once Cosmic Climb is implemented, the weekly percentage going to the GM Pool will therefore be reduced to 3%.Thanks again for the support!

1 Like