Hi,
here is the proposal for the Shufl Q1 NFT rewards program.
The program is based on previous programs we have run over the last two quarters with some minor changes to try and encourage a more even distribution of funds across a broader range of creators/projects.
We look forward to any feedback as to how we could improve this concept.
Out of the Marketplace Rewards, Shufl has been one of my favorites. I think there was an issue last cycle due to the lack of activity and it getting distributed on a scaled rate.
My thought after it ended was that the program should have lasted more on an infinite timeline instead of having it end and extrapolated the rewards over the eligible collections.
I think by doing monthly payouts, it will allow the program to last longer and give a more balanced usage for creators to push listings towards Shufl.
I agree running it over a longer period would be better. However, as part of the terms of the program, we are required to have our proposal approved meaning we cant start till late Jan at the earliest, then provide a report on the rewards program prior to being able to qualify for the following period. Allowing a small buffer either side, means realistically we can only operate it for a maximum of 6 weeks.
Hopefully adding in both a max and min cap it should ensure a more even distribution.
I think the introduction of the cap is a great improvement. Otehr than that , no need to change what isn’t broken 
Looking forward to participating
Didn’t realise that. My main gripe for all marketplace rewards has them not lasting the entire period - it’s creating spikes of trading… then down periods as people are not buying NFTs for a few weeks while they wait for the next reward szn.
I wonder if there’s a solution to what you describe, creating proposals before the gov vote… so they are part of that approval? More autonomy after X amount of consecutive successful periods? Defi rewards although they have a 1 week or so gap between periods, largely run for 12 weeks and not 6.
I really think this is something that @Joana and @Adri should look into.
Currently as it stands, the rewards are causing trading spikes, and trading/drops are being delayed to coincide with the rewards period. Having a longer timeline for these rewards would help balance things out more and create a more sustainable ecosystem.
There is no plan to bring new users/wallets in. This is just a reward program to become the middle man for creators to receive large chunks again. Check out other proposals which have a much more thought out process of funds.
How does this proposal add to growth?
I feel like just providing bigger royalties for creators, without more, mostly just acts to cannibalize other marketplaces rather than growing the pie in terms of bringing in new creators, buyers, or volume to the ecosystem.
Yes. I love for creators to get paid, but I don’t know why we are rewarding creators so heavy. It’s been a rug fest the last 3 years, most that are even getting rewards are just drawing and not proving any type of their own marketing growing the ecosystem.
The terms of the rewards program clearly states we can only reward either creators or collectors.
We have chosen to reward creators, as typically on Algorand creators are generating low revenue via royatlies, which is exactly why we see low levels of utility, marketing etc. By supporting them we hope this enables them to do more.
Over the past two quarters, the collectors who have found ways to share the rewards through community incentives have been the most successful in driving volume and increasing the amount of rewards they earn.
So even though we distribute the rewards to creators, we have seen them also benefit collectos.
Agree, we would love to see greater visibility, marketing etc, as ultimately the biggest ecosystem need is to attract new users, but the current set up of the program does not give us budget to do this.
This seems like a good idea. The problem is that there are poor NFT business models put together. I have yet to see anyone put up a campaign of marketing. I would love to see any progress that you saw from the winners from Shufl did with the money… NFT creators refuse to do marketing because they are not held accountable with the rules.
Please think about adding activity online before they can qualify. Rewarding popular creators or whales who get their community the earnings is not helpful to our NFT ecosystem
Totally agree. These rules are not helpful to growth.
Hi @LoafPickle
Hi @Stitch
Thank you for your feedback 
Even though we apply many DeFi rewards learnings to our process, many specifications require a different and slower approach.
As the Program grows, we are looking for options to streamline some processes to make things faster from the moment when the Measure is approved till the Marketplace programs start.
I appreciate your idea of creating proposals before the vote starts and I will bring it to discussion with the Governance team.
Thank you again
hey, another idea that we could action before this period start - can we enforce all reward proposals to run up to March 31st?
I think most stop mid-march. Exa stops end of Feb.
As I understand its so that marketplaces can collate sales data/KPIs etc and react for the next period?
Can these performance metric be collected prior to the close instead - after 9 weeks out of 10 everyone should have a clear idea of market trends.
Would help in making it feel more fluid and preventing breaks.
Hey @Stitch, thanks for that.
We collect the Reports by the end of each Quarter, but we internally collect data from the first weeks of the Programs (for this Quarter will be until Feb. 15th) to evaluate the performance of the Program and write the new Measure.
The reason for that is, that Governance voting starts on March 1st, and therefore the Measure needs to be written and submitted to Governance before that date.
I shared your (and also LoafPickle’s) feedback with the Marketplaces and recommended considering the extension of their Programs for a more balanced usage of rewards. This is something we can’t enforce as each Marketplace has different operational capabilities and therefore are free to design the Program as it suits them best.
Thank you again for the feedback
Thanks, if that’s the case there should be some reform to the way NFT rewards (and especially Defi rewards) are voted on at the governance level.
All the marketplaces have been very responsive - and are underfunded in terms of running these so appreciate the efforts… but some tighter guidelines need to be put in place to help prevent this seesaw trading environment. 
Qualifying:
A. NFT Marketplaces should list all places where they promote their NFT platform
This ensures that there could possibly be a check up to ensure an active marketplace. If an market place is not active on its own then they are doomed and wasting the ecosystems money.
B. Every platform should be a champion of the Algorand forum by sharing with the community all upcoming news that effects NFTs. Using the rewards to incentivize their community to participate or atleast know that the information was brought to their community’s in some fashion. So there is a chance of more engagement.
C. A marketing plan needs to be involved everytime. The overall participation needs to be improved. Ways of doing this is requiring NFT platforms to hold 3 spaces (one each month) to gain more feedback or push any agenda going forward. Asking for feedback/upgrades should be a all the time thing and spaces are an easy low energy effective way of doing this. This helps out with deadlines that are too fast.
D. Rewards should be split amongst the platforms with a higher cap. Rand is doing majority of the sales but receive the same amount as EXA. Which I get trying to split up the money better but this does not encourage growth and accountability. Rand having significantly higher sales then everyone else should be eye opener into the type of effort being put in. Not every NFT platform needs to participate. Algorand has plenty of options when it comes to DeFi/NFT platforms more than alot of other L1s which is good to have options. But this cuts into the money actually being useful for overall growth.
E. Rewarding just Buyers & Sellers is not impactful at all. Its just another way to farm the system. While rewarding them isnt a bad idea but we need more options to this money spent.
→ Allow for upgrades that will help promote cross-chain, unique wallet growth, over overall activity on-chain, also IRL onboarding events. POAP is a great way to onboard people in real life. Without diving into IRL event strategies there are very easy/cheap ways to do this that only require your time. NFT platforms should already be doing this or some form on their own.
The rules on how its spent should have any rules just guidelines, this should then be voted on through the NFT council
Speaking of NFT council. No one should be on there that is receiving direct benefits to their platform period. Everyone on that council does not push the agenda of NFT rewards, Algorand Forum or even NFT platforms in general. If they do not have time to do this then take them off. Have not seen anyone from the council talk about any of these things publicly or on the forum which is unfortunate. More accountability should be on this council and we dont know who is left on their except for a few who are not active.
More users is the name of the game, being a middle man for the rewards is not it. Lets face it, all of these NFT platforms are not making profit to even cover platform cost let alone paid wages. This reward system should basically be a grant to help them improve overall through certain criteria’s (Listed above). This will help them long term for growth.
I see the attempt with IRL.algo and AF, maybe make this a camp ground for NFT updates and news, would get her more views and be an easy way to promote her and NFT platforms on their.
Sorry for grammar, typed this up fast as I could. Thanks for listening @Joana @Adri
Hey @Richflairstv
Thank you so much for your insights and feedback. Please know that all the feedback provided will be discussed and (if applicable) considered for future NFT Rewards Programs.
In the meantime, I wanted to clarify a few things and please feel free to ask any additional questions:
NFT Rewards Marketing plan: since the allocated Rewards need to be fully deployed to NFT users and creators, it leaves very few options for Marketing campaigns. Therefore, the NFT team is partnering with the Marketing team to make a big marketing push for the NFT Rewards Program 3 (with a big focus on non-Algorand users). This will allow Marketplaces to focus on their businesses while the AF team is focused on the growth of users and the Program.
In regards to the cap and Rewards distribution, we apply qualifying criteria based on Algo transaction volume (that needs to be at least 10% of total rewards being distributed. Q1 = 65k ALGO) and then we apply a cap of 35% to Marketplaces with more than 50% of total NFT marketplace volume (= Rand). We are currently discussing alternative ways to split rewards and to approach the cap system from Q2 onwards (if applicable), seeking a more balanced distribution of rewards and to keep incentivizing the growth of the NFT Marketplaces ecosystem as a whole (I agree with you that we have many DeFi/NFT platforms options compared to other L1s. That is something I see with good eyes: a healthy ecosystem is one where there’s competition and a constant push for innovation).
The level of freedom in the way rewards are being split is quite open to allow for innovation and diversity. I agree that there’s room for new thinking and deployment strategies but I also know that each Marketplace is doing its best with the resources and capabilities they have. The goal of the above-mentioned Marketing strategy/push is to not only grow the number of users interacting with the Program but also to promote each of the participating Marketplaces externally. I agree on the IRL/online events piece and that is something I will bring to our Community Champions team.
Regarding the NFT Council’s involvement, please know that no decisions are being made by the Council about this Program. The only steps where there’s Council involvement are data-related matters like reviewing and approving qualifying applicants (based on a 6-month volume) as well as reviewing final proposals (which the AF team also double-checks). We also have a Slack channel with all participating Marketplace representatives where we host discussions and feedback loops about the Program so each platform has an equal opportunity to be heard.
In this Program, new frameworks are being tested for broader community review and feedback: preliminary proposals were uploaded here in the Forum for community feedback and the preliminary measure (for Period 10 voting) will be shared with y’all here for your feedback too. That way, the NFT Council, the Marketplaces, and the community have equal access to information and a platform to publicly request iterations. If successful, we plan to scale this to other measures being implemented on the NFT ecosystem level.
Thanks again for your time and feedback it means a lot.
Joana,
Thanks for the response! I think in most instances having the period shortened works well for the volume spikes.
It’s really only the case of Shufl where the rewards are more of a rebate for creators where a time extension would go well. As seen by the last cycle, they had to be distributed for the sake of being distributed. It would have been nice if Shufl could have banked the rewards until organically completed.