CIP-0104 Amendment: Featured App Weights
- Hello All,Tokenomics has requested an amendment to CIP-0104 that allows on-ledger voting to set application reward weights per app. This proposed featured app weight extension to CIP-0104 fulfils that request and is fast to deliver.What were proposing specifically is to add an "activity weight" to the on-chain featured app status. This weight is adjustable per application through the same on-chain voting process that grants and revokes featured app status in the first place. The weight defaults to 1.0 and is applied on a per-round basis to the traffic (in bytes) attributed to the app before reward distribution is calculated. This relatively simple amendment to CIP-0104 is sketched in this amendment PR to the CIP text.We are proposing to roll this out as part of the CIP-0104 go-live, which will mean delaying CIP-0104 go-live from July to August.In order to keep the delay to CIP-0104 to a minimum, we hope to get a decision whether to roll out within July without this amendment, or in August with this amendment as soon as possible. I therefore request that you provide any feedback or questions in the next couple of days. In the absence of questions or feedback, I'll look for endorsement and voting.For full transparency, should this amendment pass, we will also be looking for an adjustment to the associated grant, but that's for a different forum to discuss.Kind regards,Bernhard--
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. Hi Bernhard,
I noticed that the PR summary mentions -
The app marker mechanism allows governance bodies to respond to observed behaviours and imbalances…. [this PR] would allow similarly fine-grained adjustments to app rewards on a per-app basis.
Is the intention that this would be used purely as a corrective measure e.g. if a Featured App is seen to create too many markers, then its weighting could be downgraded in order to rebalance? (But the majority of Featured Apps would remain at 1.0)
Or do the group envisage a wider change here e.g. tiered featured apps (a 'super featured app, say, that has x5 rewards)?
I know these things are subject to change (and that we can't necessarily bank on rewards via the coupons anyhow), but just having an idea on the direction of travel would be great for planning against as a small company. Especially now that access to FA status itself is already gated behind a large CC stake.(This may be a wider question than the scope of the PR itself on the CIP draft. Apologies if this is wrong forum for it!)
Thanks
DaveOn Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 15:41, Bernhard Elsner via lists.sync.global <bernhard.elsner=digitalasset.com@...> wrote:Hello All,Tokenomics has requested an amendment to CIP-0104 that allows on-ledger voting to set application reward weights per app. This proposed featured app weight extension to CIP-0104 fulfils that request and is fast to deliver.What were proposing specifically is to add an "activity weight" to the on-chain featured app status. This weight is adjustable per application through the same on-chain voting process that grants and revokes featured app status in the first place. The weight defaults to 1.0 and is applied on a per-round basis to the traffic (in bytes) attributed to the app before reward distribution is calculated. This relatively simple amendment to CIP-0104 is sketched in this amendment PR to the CIP text.We are proposing to roll this out as part of the CIP-0104 go-live, which will mean delaying CIP-0104 go-live from July to August.In order to keep the delay to CIP-0104 to a minimum, we hope to get a decision whether to roll out within July without this amendment, or in August with this amendment as soon as possible. I therefore request that you provide any feedback or questions in the next couple of days. In the absence of questions or feedback, I'll look for endorsement and voting.For full transparency, should this amendment pass, we will also be looking for an adjustment to the associated grant, but that's for a different forum to discuss.Kind regards,Bernhard--
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.- toggle quoted message Show quoted textVery much TBDwe've only asked for the ability at this pointLong standing requestOn Jun 30, 2026, at 11:22 AM, Dave M via lists.sync.global <dave=axymos.com@...> wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
I noticed that the PR summary mentions -
The app marker mechanism allows governance bodies to respond to observed behaviours and imbalances…. [this PR] would allow similarly fine-grained adjustments to app rewards on a per-app basis.
Is the intention that this would be used purely as a corrective measure e.g. if a Featured App is seen to create too many markers, then its weighting could be downgraded in order to rebalance? (But the majority of Featured Apps would remain at 1.0)
Or do the group envisage a wider change here e.g. tiered featured apps (a 'super featured app, say, that has x5 rewards)?
I know these things are subject to change (and that we can't necessarily bank on rewards via the coupons anyhow), but just having an idea on the direction of travel would be great for planning against as a small company. Especially now that access to FA status itself is already gated behind a large CC stake.(This may be a wider question than the scope of the PR itself on the CIP draft. Apologies if this is wrong forum for it!)
Thanks
DaveOn Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 15:41, Bernhard Elsner via lists.sync.global <bernhard.elsner=digitalasset.com@...> wrote:Hello All,Tokenomics has requested an amendment to CIP-0104 that allows on-ledger voting to set application reward weights per app. This proposed featured app weight extension to CIP-0104 fulfils that request and is fast to deliver.What were proposing specifically is to add an "activity weight" to the on-chain featured app status. This weight is adjustable per application through the same on-chain voting process that grants and revokes featured app status in the first place. The weight defaults to 1.0 and is applied on a per-round basis to the traffic (in bytes) attributed to the app before reward distribution is calculated. This relatively simple amendment to CIP-0104 is sketched in this amendment PR to the CIP text.We are proposing to roll this out as part of the CIP-0104 go-live, which will mean delaying CIP-0104 go-live from July to August.In order to keep the delay to CIP-0104 to a minimum, we hope to get a decision whether to roll out within July without this amendment, or in August with this amendment as soon as possible. I therefore request that you provide any feedback or questions in the next couple of days. In the absence of questions or feedback, I'll look for endorsement and voting.For full transparency, should this amendment pass, we will also be looking for an adjustment to the associated grant, but that's for a different forum to discuss.Kind regards,Bernhard--
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. - toggle quoted message Show quoted textUnderstood, thanks for confirming Eric!Best wishesDaveOn Tue 30 Jun 2026, 16:43 Eric Saraniecki via lists.sync.global, <eric=digitalasset.com@...> wrote:Very much TBDwe've only asked for the ability at this pointLong standing request
On Jun 30, 2026, at 11:22 AM, Dave M via lists.sync.global <dave=axymos.com@...> wrote:Hi Bernhard,
I noticed that the PR summary mentions -
The app marker mechanism allows governance bodies to respond to observed behaviours and imbalances…. [this PR] would allow similarly fine-grained adjustments to app rewards on a per-app basis.
Is the intention that this would be used purely as a corrective measure e.g. if a Featured App is seen to create too many markers, then its weighting could be downgraded in order to rebalance? (But the majority of Featured Apps would remain at 1.0)
Or do the group envisage a wider change here e.g. tiered featured apps (a 'super featured app, say, that has x5 rewards)?
I know these things are subject to change (and that we can't necessarily bank on rewards via the coupons anyhow), but just having an idea on the direction of travel would be great for planning against as a small company. Especially now that access to FA status itself is already gated behind a large CC stake.(This may be a wider question than the scope of the PR itself on the CIP draft. Apologies if this is wrong forum for it!)
Thanks
DaveOn Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 15:41, Bernhard Elsner via lists.sync.global <bernhard.elsner=digitalasset.com@...> wrote:Hello All,Tokenomics has requested an amendment to CIP-0104 that allows on-ledger voting to set application reward weights per app. This proposed featured app weight extension to CIP-0104 fulfils that request and is fast to deliver.What were proposing specifically is to add an "activity weight" to the on-chain featured app status. This weight is adjustable per application through the same on-chain voting process that grants and revokes featured app status in the first place. The weight defaults to 1.0 and is applied on a per-round basis to the traffic (in bytes) attributed to the app before reward distribution is calculated. This relatively simple amendment to CIP-0104 is sketched in this amendment PR to the CIP text.We are proposing to roll this out as part of the CIP-0104 go-live, which will mean delaying CIP-0104 go-live from July to August.In order to keep the delay to CIP-0104 to a minimum, we hope to get a decision whether to roll out within July without this amendment, or in August with this amendment as soon as possible. I therefore request that you provide any feedback or questions in the next couple of days. In the absence of questions or feedback, I'll look for endorsement and voting.For full transparency, should this amendment pass, we will also be looking for an adjustment to the associated grant, but that's for a different forum to discuss.Kind regards,Bernhard--
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. - Sorry if this is obvious but I read the CIP and the PRs and was wondering what governs how weights are set and how often they change? Knowing this will help with planning for sureThanks!
- toggle quoted message Show quoted textTBDOn Jul 1, 2026, at 7:05 PM, Saxon via lists.sync.global <ian.lawrence=saxonadvisors.com@...> wrote:Sorry if this is obvious but I read the CIP and the PRs and was wondering what governs how weights are set and how often they change? Knowing this will help with planning for sureThanks!
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. - MPCH is happy to endorse or sponsor.