In crypto, the community often pushes for delivery while the team waits for token unlocks—and the two things often seem to move on separate tracks. The product can wait a little longer, but the unlock calendar hasn’t missed a single day 😂 So with NeoSoul’s Believe Plan, the question I most want answered is: if the community sets challenges that could actually prevent the team from receiving its current unlock, will the team still accept them?
Based on the direction announced this time, each team unlock will first have to pass KPIs. If the targets aren’t met, the tokens won’t unlock, and the community can also help set the challenges. Last month’s proposals focused on real revenue, retention, and on-chain verifiability—not token prices or trading volume as measures of success. I support that direction.
But setting the challenges is only the first step. Who chooses them? Who scores them? And whose decision counts when the team and community disagree? Those are the things that determine whether the community is holding an actual exam paper or just a suggestion box.
I hope the rules to come will answer one question: if the community raises an issue the team doesn’t want to hear, but one that really could determine the product’s success or failure, can it stay on the table and become a challenge the team has to face?
For now, let “a project built to last a century” remain a vision. The real test of a promise is whether the rules still hold when delivery falls short and the team itself has something to lose.
That’s far more convincing than any number of “Believe” shouts when the going is good.
See @NeoSoulAI’s main post today for the details. I’d rather see everyone set tough challenges. If you say you won’t grade your own homework, then don’t just pick questions you already know how to answer.
@NeoSoulAI
#NeoSoul
Based on the direction announced this time, each team unlock will first have to pass KPIs. If the targets aren’t met, the tokens won’t unlock, and the community can also help set the challenges. Last month’s proposals focused on real revenue, retention, and on-chain verifiability—not token prices or trading volume as measures of success. I support that direction.
But setting the challenges is only the first step. Who chooses them? Who scores them? And whose decision counts when the team and community disagree? Those are the things that determine whether the community is holding an actual exam paper or just a suggestion box.
I hope the rules to come will answer one question: if the community raises an issue the team doesn’t want to hear, but one that really could determine the product’s success or failure, can it stay on the table and become a challenge the team has to face?
For now, let “a project built to last a century” remain a vision. The real test of a promise is whether the rules still hold when delivery falls short and the team itself has something to lose.
That’s far more convincing than any number of “Believe” shouts when the going is good.
See @NeoSoulAI’s main post today for the details. I’d rather see everyone set tough challenges. If you say you won’t grade your own homework, then don’t just pick questions you already know how to answer.
@NeoSoulAI
#NeoSoul