Impact measuring factors for consideration

Listing the different factors that will be considered for each impact measurement approach

The methodology used for this approach comparison is documented separately.

Impact measurability

  • Description - When priorities get addressed, ideas get executed and contributors make contribution efforts an amount of impact can be generated that benefits the ecosystem. A measurable outcome occurs when the extent of the impact generated by a certain initiative can be more easily understood and compared with other similar initiatives.

  • Maximum score - 5, Very important. Measuring whether impact has been generated effectively or not can have a direct influence on better informing a community on where future funds could be allocated to generate further impact for the ecosystem. An ecosystem will want to be as effective and targeted as possible in identifying what outcomes and efforts were the most effective for generating impact.

  • Scoring questions - What total impact has been generated? How easy is it to measure the different areas of impact? How comparable is the impact generated compared to other initiatives?

  • Scoring - Higher measurability is good (Score - 5). Low measurability is bad (Score - 1).

Future impact opportunity

  • Description - Calculating the return on investment is more easily achieved when the outcomes of an initiative can be measured. If the impact generated is well understood then this information can be useful for determining what future similar opportunities might be suitable for generating impact in the future.

  • Maximum score - 5, Very important. Effective impact measurement can directly help with identifying how future incentives could be more accurately allocated to generate more impact for an ecosystem.

  • Scoring questions - How easy can impact be repeatedly generated by applying the information about how much impact was generated by different initiatives? Does the impact measurement of that approach help to improve how treasury assets can be allocated in the future?

  • Scoring - Higher opportunity is good (Score - 5). Low opportunity is bad (Score - 1).

Game theory risks

  • Description - The metrics and perceived outcomes of any funded initiative could be manipulated or exaggerated to make it seem like that initiative had made more impact than it actually has. Bad actors might attempt to do this to increase their chances of receiving future compensation.

  • Maximum score - 5, Very important. An ecosystem will need to identify and prevent bad actors from lying to and deceiving a community about what has actually made an impact for the ecosystem. A community that can effectively prevent bad actors will be able to more reliably identify impactful initiatives and improve future disbursement decisions.

  • Scoring questions - How could contributors lie or be deceptive about the different areas that are measured for determining what impact has been generated? How could contributors exaggerate about a certain outcome and the impact it helped to generate?

  • Scoring - Lower risk is good (Score - 5). Higher risk is bad (Score - 1).

Impact verification time required

  • Description - Verifying how much impact has been generated can take a varying amount of time for each approach. Considering the total effort and time it might require to verify the impact generated can help to reveal how complex the impact measuring process could be to execute.

  • Maximum score - 5, Very important. The longer it takes to gather and verify the amount of impact that has been generated for different initiatives the more costly that given approach will be.

  • Scoring questions - How much time is required to measure and verify the impact that has been generated? What parts of that measurement could be automated? What manual verifications might still be required now and in the future?

  • Scoring - Lower time required is good (Score - 5). Higher time required is bad (Score - 1).

Last updated