A contribution in Axynom is any action that creates measurable, positive impact for the protocol. The PoG system accepts a broad range of contribution types, but every submission must meet baseline standards of originality, effort, and relevance.
This page outlines common valid contribution categories, examples within each, and how they are typically evaluated.
Content
Purpose: Educate, attract, or retain users through writing, video, or audio formats.
Examples:
Long-form blog post explaining Axynom’s reward model
Twitter thread breaking down a new feature or contract
Video tutorial showing how to stake AXY or submit a contribution
Evaluation Criteria:
Clarity, depth, originality
Reach (audience engagement)
Technical or strategic accuracy
Alignment with current ecosystem phase
Design and Branding
Purpose: Improve visual identity, communication clarity, and user experience.
Examples:
Social media graphics for PoG campaigns
UI mockups or Figma layouts for the Axynom app
Community badge or GP tier visuals
Evaluation Criteria:
Quality of execution
Adherence to brand style
Functional relevance (usable in production)
Reusability in the wider protocol ecosystem
Development
Purpose: Extend or support Axynom’s codebase, integrations, or automation.
Scripts to automate contribution verification or analytics
Front-end components for staking or reward claiming
Evaluation Criteria:
Code quality and readability
Security impact or performance gain
Modularity and ease of integration
Actual adoption in protocol repositories
Research and Strategy
Purpose: Produce insights that guide protocol direction, governance, or user behavior.
Examples:
Deep-dive on staking models across other protocols
Proposal for improved contributor onboarding flow
Breakdown of gas costs and PoG sustainability projections
Evaluation Criteria:
Relevance to current decisions
Accuracy of data or sourcing
Novelty of insight
Feasibility or actionability
Promotion and Ecosystem Growth
Purpose: Directly increase awareness, userbase, or contributor activity.
Examples:
Hosting a community call or workshop
Securing external media coverage
Coordinating PoG campaigns with partner protocols
Evaluation Criteria:
Measurable reach or conversions
Authenticity and message quality
Compliance with campaign guidelines
Sustainability of growth impact
Coordination and Moderation
Purpose: Support ongoing operations, governance, and contributor management.
Examples:
Reviewing and scoring contributions as a moderator
Managing a contributor onboarding funnel
Drafting and enforcing forum guidelines
Evaluation Criteria:
Consistency and effort level
Visibility and impact on contributor experience
Feedback from other participants
Adherence to protocol process
Each contribution is reviewed in context. There is no fixed GP scale for each category, but internal guidelines ensure that work is evaluated consistently across types and time periods.
Submissions that are rushed, copied, vague, or inflated in scope will be rejected. High-effort contributions that advance the protocol, even in quiet or technical areas, are prioritized.
Contributors are encouraged to focus on work that solves real problems, not just work that gets attention.