Trust
Should new members receive extra influence?
26 supporters410 influence
10 comments · 10 people in the discussion
- Idea→
- Discussing→
- Gaining support→
- Proposal→
- Voting→
- Approved→
- Building→
- In experiment→
- Shipped→
- Measured
Problem
A brand-new member and a founder both get 100 influence. Newcomers say they have nothing to spend it on wisely. Founders say a newcomer can swing a quiet vote.
Why it matters
The first month teaches people what influence is. If we get the grant wrong, we teach them it's either pointless or a weapon.
Potential solutions
No solution has been proposed. The problem is the point, for now.
Proposal #28
Should new members receive extra influence?
- Problem
- A brand-new member and a founder both get 100 influence. Newcomers say they have nothing to spend it on wisely. Founders say a newcomer can swing a quiet vote.
- Evidence
- First-month votes cluster on whatever is open the day someone joins. That is orientation, not judgment.
- Proposed change
- Keep the grant at 100, and delay spending until onboarding is done. Do not add a bonus.
- Expected impact
- New members learn the resource before they can move a decision.
- Alternatives
- A starter bonus of 50. It flatters and it cheapens the monthly limit.
- Risks
- A delay can feel like a waiting room. Onboarding has to be short enough to finish the same day.
- Open questions
- Do we show locked influence so the lesson is visible?
- Complexity
- small
- Success metrics
- First votes happen after a comment, not before one.
The draft is open for discussion before a vote begins.
Hive Intelligence · community synthesis
Synthesis
Drawn from the discussion. Not a decision.
A brand-new member and a founder both get 100 influence. Newcomers say they have nothing to spend it on wisely.
Evidence
- The part I would spend influence on is specific: newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote.
- I don't want another feature. I want fewer people stuck with newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote.
- I keep running into this around newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote. “Should new members receive extra influence?” is the name I would have used.
Community sentiment
- Demand is specific. Supporters keep returning to the same broken moment, not a vague wish list.
- The objection is about scope. Concerns are less “never do this” and more “don’t do it in a way that drowns the problem.”
- People brought proof. Evidence comments describe real sessions, not hypothetical users.
Arguments for
- The explanation of influence mattered more to me than the amount. Don't bury the sentence.
- Before we build “Should new members receive extra influence?”, write the success metric in the proposal itself.
- A smaller version of “Should new members receive extra influence?” could tell us if we even framed the problem correctly.
Arguments against
- Any bonus becomes an incentive to create accounts. We will spend the year cleaning that up.
Alternatives
- Same 100. Require one comment before the first vote. Spending stays scarce, and it's informed.
Open questions
- I am not proposing a bonus. I am asking why the first 100 feels either huge or fake.
Treat “Should new members receive extra influence?” as a problem statement: A brand-new member and a founder both get 100 influence. Ask the hive to propose the smallest change that would make the problem smaller. Why it matters here: The first month teaches people what influence is.
Community discussion
I am not proposing a bonus. I am asking why the first 100 feels either huge or fake.
Any bonus becomes an incentive to create accounts. We will spend the year cleaning that up.
Same 100. Require one comment before the first vote. Spending stays scarce, and it's informed.
The explanation of influence mattered more to me than the amount. Don't bury the sentence.
Before we build “Should new members receive extra influence?”, write the success metric in the proposal itself.
The part I would spend influence on is specific: newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote.
A smaller version of “Should new members receive extra influence?” could tell us if we even framed the problem correctly.
I don't want another feature. I want fewer people stuck with newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote.
Whatever we do with “Should new members receive extra influence?”, the decision has to stay attached to this thread.
I keep running into this around newcomers either hoarded influence or spent it on the first open vote. “Should new members receive extra influence?” is the name I would have used.
Join the hive to add to this thread.