At the suggestion of @surajp, I am posting this here.
This proposal in the CoE category [Proposal]: Incentivized submissions for a greater reach (on 1729.com) seeks to build visibility of (and participation in) the tournament. Implied in the proposal is the idea that more participants is better.
But is this true? I’d like to look more closely at the impact of greater participation, because in the last few weeks the growing amount of staked NMR has led to plummeting payout factors for everyone. So “greater participation” in that sense isn’t necessarily benefitting staking participants. But is it somehow better for the stability/visibility of NMR? Or the health of the metamodel?
Consider this statement:
The ideal amount of NMR staked in the tourney should be X.
What is the value you assign X, and why?
As tourney participant, my value for X is X <= 300k, given that at 300k is when the payout factor begins dropping.
What is X from the perspective of Numerai HQ if different from mine? And why?
The CoE has been given some funding to enact proposals such as the one linked above. Before they begin doing that, I would love to hear what the CoE’s version of X is (and why).
A related statement:
The best way to maximize the stability and value of NMR is Y.
This might open a whole new can of worms, but since the proposal I linked at the top seems to couple participation with token appreciation, I figured I’d float it here too. Because maybe I’m better off with an X > 300k if Y means that the NMR I have in the tourney is less volatile.
As a single data point: since I’ve been staking in the tourney (4ish months), the value of my total NMR portfolio in USD has moved almost 2x more due to NMRs variable value than due to tourney performance. So stability of the token is arguably of greater concern than payout factor!
Thanks all for your thoughts on this. I’m sure there are many interconnected factors at play and I’d like to understand them better.