Potential downsides and limitations

While not stated as its sole purpose, there is a temptation to use the tool as an objective for ecosystem, protocol or project design and incentives. This could lead to perverse outcomes, unfairly penalising certain users or simply less of an effect than hoped.

A problem of scale

Maybe it is better suited for new users, and those will little downside risks. For them they get a broad exposure to the ecosystem and are likely rewarded for it.

Larger users have a larger reponsibility, and their actions a larger impact on some of these categories (staking, voting, holding/dumping).

Is holding actually good?

There are cases where a forced hold is not good for individuals, groups, protocols or the entire ecosystem. For example:

• Holding tokens for protocols where tokenomics favours early investors, project teams and whales (a lot of tokens for recent projects on terra have had significant and sustained levels of selling pressure)
• Holding tokens regardless of the performance of the protocol can give rise to inefficient market behaviour in response to new information. This could actually cause a lack of consequences for negative behaviour, and over compensation for positive behaviour.

Spurious voting

Users may rashly cast governance votes to obtain a higher score.

• No penalty for those come up with bad votes?

• Aside from governance voting, there is also protocol level voting to consider. Its possible that users who score highly on all the metrics either dont vote,

Doubling up (creating multiple wallets)

Users can create multiple wallets to avoid penalties associated with having a lower Lunatic score on their existing or main wallets.

• Depending on what other conditions apply, the lunatic score may not be very effective.
• This would be especially the case when the costs of maintaining multiple wallets are low relative to the rewards to address with high LUNAtic scores.

Relative weighting of individual metrics

The score assigned to each metric may not reflect an optimal weighting. This could lead to too low or too high of an importance being assigned to a given metric.

This could potentially be managed through careful quantitative or qualitative consideration of the importance of each individual metric for the given problem.

The LUNAtics tool

The purpose of the tool - To quantify behavioural measures of terra ecosystem users.

Metric Categories:

• Activity
• Governance
• Degeneracy
• Cash out / HODL
• Airdrops

Potential upsides

Helps to improve ecosystem design, and prompt more thoughtful discussion and design for protocols, apps and projects.

Qualitative discussion

Before undertaking a data driven exploration of the lunatic score, lets discuss some of the limitations from a conceptual perspective. Many of these points will require more detailed analysis to explore.