Thoughts on Web3 Community Rewards Distribution

Recently, the rewards distribution event of a certain community has sparked heated discussions. The event set up three awards, each selecting winners through different mechanisms. This design has caused some controversy and has led people to reflect on the challenges of governance in Web3 communities.

The event has set up three awards, with the first place determined by votes from senior community members, receiving the highest value rewards. The second and third places are decided based on social media interaction volume. This design aims to balance fairness and participation, but inevitably raises questions.

A new member has raised objections, stating that they find it difficult to gain sufficient attention on social media. They are demanding "absolute openness, fairness, and justice," which has put considerable pressure on the management team. In fact, pursuing absolute fairness in a complex community ecosystem is extremely challenging.

The concept of Web3 is to pursue transparency, fairness, and decentralization. However, in practice, achieving these goals is not easy. Even benchmark projects like Ethereum operate in a way that is closer to traditional companies. This shows that the quality of the product and the governance model do not have a simple correspondence.

Community management faces many challenges. In the Web3 environment, user identity privacy is protected, but it also adds difficulty to activities such as voting and lotteries. How to ensure fairness while protecting privacy is a topic that needs to be continuously explored.

For this type of dispute, some principles can be referenced: 1) participants should respect established rules, dissatisfaction can be expressed through suggestions or by choosing to withdraw; 2) winners should remain humble, and losers should remain patient; 3) before consensus is reached, management should act cautiously, and members should also lower their expectations appropriately.

The road to Web3 community governance is still long. We need to continuously explore a balanced approach in practice and gradually improve the mechanisms. Although it may not satisfy everyone, gaining the recognition of the majority of members is a phase of success.