⢠Skim full thread, jot key themes (support, concerns, open questions). ⢠Draft: ⢠3â5 bullet âwhat Iâm hearing from the communityâ ⢠3â5 bullet âimplications / risksâ ⢠2â3 bullet âmy current lean + what Iâd like more clarity onâ ⢠Post your synthesis comment + optionally share a TL;DR in the delegate Discord/Telegram if applicable.
If you paste the key replies (or your rough notes) here, I can turn them into a polished synthesis fast.
Curia This is a great discussion point that is both timely and needed - thank you @Axia for putting this forward!
As we are seeing in other DAOs (i.e. Scroll DAO comes to mind) there seems to be a positive trend beyond delegates just providing forum discourse and voting, which we agree, is very important for grants, but this should allow for delegates to really make an impact.
We agree that this should be a joint discussion with RootstockLabs team (and Anode team) to focus on the greatest impact, however, instead of having RTLabs not only identifying the top 5 priorities (for example) + ways to participate, we would suggest that any proactive âprojects/pilotsâ are created and driven by the delegates.
In otherwords, instead of waiting to have the RTLabs to identify their priorities and then how the delegates can help, we should be driving this - with our own ideas (like your post of the TABConf discussion). Looking forward to continue to developing this idea.
This is an interesting topic: âWhat can delegates contribute more to Rootstock beyond reviewing grants?â
We think first we need to identify the priority of the Rootstock Collective. Then we can create initiatives that align with those priorities.
So our question is:
What does Rootstock need right now?
-
More awareness?
-
More liquidity?
-
More projects?
Right now it feels a bit scattered for delegates. We donât have clearly defined priority tracks. Without alignment on top ecosystem needs, itâs difficult to mobilize delegates toward measurable impact.
Linking this to your initiative Idea/Sentiment Check: Rootstock Participation in TABConf8 Conference itâs good that you raised this discussion. It could be one of the priorities if Rootstock wants to increase awareness and attract more builders to apply for grants.
One thing weâve been researching that might add value to this conversation is Collective Rewards program.
Currently:
-
23,135,985 RIF is staked in Collective Rewards
-
Thatâs only ~2.3% of total 1B RIF supply
-
Around 97.7% of RIF remains inactive
From Cycle 24 to Cycle 32:
-
Backing grew from 18.6M to 23.1M RIF
-
+4.52M RIF (~24% growth in 4 months)
Growth is positive but still gradual. Adoption has not yet reached broad RIF holder participation.
So maybe another priority could be:
Should we onboard more RIF holders to the program and stake their RIF?
Before creating additional delegate contribution tracks, maybe we first need alignment on:
- What are the top 2â3 priorities for Rootstock in the next 12 months?
Once thatâs clear, we can design initiatives that are directly aligned â instead of everyone pushing in slightly different directions.
From the perspective of governance facilitators: Additional initiatives beyond the agreed scope of delegate work are of course a sight to behold. DAOs are place for permissionless participation. They sit a the far end of permeability where basically anyone can walk in and participate to provide value.
The right approach to think about this is to distinguish value accretion from extraction, in my opinion.
Is there value accruing to Rootstock?
If so, how do delegates share in the actual value created?
An excellent example here is the Aave Chan Initiative that brought in multiple millions in revenue for a modest price tag. They started to provide value, and then got funds from the DAO.
In my opinion the way to approach additional participation is by having a very well formed and proven course of action for how to accrue value to Rootstock Collective, then actually start producing that value, and then getting a cut of that, as is right.
Rootstock is a fantastic product with a tight flywheel for mutually beneficial value creation. Letâs buidl.
Iâm proposing we create an additional pathway for delegate contribution, where delegates are incentivized not only to review grants, but also to initiate strategic work in Rootstockâs highest-impact areas.
This is an interesting discussion and I completely agree with @Axia here. I wonder if its possible for delegates to independently lead initiatives which compliment the strategies being worked on by the Labs team. However this does require some sort of âapprovalâ from the Labs team, hence delegates independently proposing and venturing into ideas maybe engaging in terms or participation but not as impactful in terms of bottomline metrics.
An excellent example here is the Aave Chan Initiative that brought in multiple millions in revenue for a modest price tag. They started to provide value, and then got funds from the DAO.
The ACI example is really interesting. ACI has had a long history working with the AAVE Labs team and was able to leverage this knowledge into product evolution and growth. I wonder if someone from the Labs team at Rootstock could be more actively suggesting priorities for the DAO in the consequent months.
2
We totally agree with your comments, @Raphael_Anode regarding providing real value. We believe that what @Axia is truly asking is a strategic question to the DAO: âwhat do we want to become when we grow up â, and how can delegates help drive this vision?
We did some research on ACI that you mentioned in your comments, and discovered the current Aave Labs/ACI/Aave DAO âdebacleâ. Lots of lessons for any DAO to be learned, however, what really stood out to us (and what you also mentioned), was about always verifying an action or decision against your âNorth Star/Litmus testâ , to check if this program/grant/project/goal provides value to Rootstock.
ACI said it best in their recent Aave Forum post
[
image791Ă309 14 KB
](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/rootstockcollective/original/1X/a8e856c8b0f35510e7f0374059cf78a87498a919.png âimageâ)
 Weâre paraphasing its meaning into - âwhat are you delivering?, what will it cost?, and what is the return?â and our addition, and âhow much did it move the needle?â (cited source: Aave Labs: $86 Million, 23% of the Token Supply, and this is their Track Record - General - Aave)
Regardless, of how we go about it, this conversation should eventually evolve from talk to action, even baby steps (i.e. pilot) to test a theory. While we agree with @DAOplomats comments about not creating innitiatives without alignment from RTLabs on ecosystem objectives, we donât agree that we need âapprovalâ from RTLabs on the right strategies or awaiting on them to provide the priorities.
As we commented in the Idea/Sentiment Check: Rootstock Participation in TABConf8 Conference post, that DAO strategic objectives may not be same as Labs/Ecosystem objectives and that is OK - the DAOâs objectives can compliment the latterâs and expand into areas that they cannot.
Thanks @Axia for raising this. I agree with @Raphael_Anode that any new initiative should be clearly defined, strategically aligned, and focused on creating real value for the DAO. If delegates can demonstrate impact, then compensation can follow.
Beside that, a simple step we can take now is increasing marketing awareness through recognized delegates. Social posts, educational threads, and consistent communication about Rootstock can gradually build user understanding and support long term growth.
We could consider treating this as a bonus incentive for delegates who go beyond their core duties. Velora tried this approach by adding bonus rewards to their delegate program (even though itâs currently paused). It could be a useful reference point.
I think @Axia raised something important here that deserves more focused discussion besides compensation mechanics.
My understanding of the OP was the core question: what strategic contributions can delegates realistically make beyond grant review, and which of those would actually move the needle for the ecosystem?
@Francisco naming liquidity introductions as the highest-value ask from delegates is telling. Thatâs not a governance task, itâs a network-driven contribution. And it highlights something we havenât fully explored: each on their own way, the delegates bring professional networks, industry relationships, and in some cases significant public reach that the Collective isnât activating in any structured way.
Consider that we have delegates with deep institutional relationships, others with meaningful distribution on crypto Twitter, and others with direct operational experience in DeFi, tokenization, stablecoin, payments, finance, banking, mining, or infrastructure. That collective surface area is arguably more valuable to builders than the grant funding itself, especially during bear markets when liquidity dries up and visibility becomes survival.
Iâd suggest we map out what high-leverage contributions actually look like. A few that seem concrete enough to build around:
Liquidity introductions for grantees scaling onchain, as @Francisco flagged. Strategic introductions to institutional partners, exchanges, or integration targets. Amplification and distribution support for builders launching products. Conference and event strategy with clear objectives tied to ecosystem KPIs, building on the TABConf or Ipe Village threads.
Some of these require coordination with Rootstock Labs team to avoid duplication, which I agree with. But the framing should start from âwhere do delegates have unique leverage that Labs doesnâtâ rather than âwhat other tasks can we add to the delegate job description.â
Iâd be curious to hear from other delegates what contributions theyâre already making informally that could be formalized, and from Labs where they see the biggest gaps that delegate networks could fill.