[0926] Rootstock Builder Hub: a cohosted showcase at LABITCONF 2026

Project name: Rootstock Builder Hub, LABITCONF Buenos Aires 2026 Submission date: 21 September 2026 Total requested: $20,000 USD-equivalent

Delegates and stRIF holders: we’d like your thoughts before this goes on-chain. Questions, pushback on the targets, or suggestions on who should be in that space are all welcome in this thread.


Classification

  • Project stage: Growth

  • Sector: Community & Ecosystem Growth / User Onboarding

Target audience

Track A, Builders. Early- and mid-stage Bitcoin/Web3 developers and technical founders across LATAM, plus existing RootstockCollective grantees who cohost the space. Labitconf runs a dedicated Developers stage and a technical Workshop stage; this is the population of the Hub’s 1:1 sessions and deployment support target.

Track B, Users. The ~10,500 general attendees, overwhelmingly retail crypto users. 64% of LATAM crypto activity runs through centralised exchanges, so this is a large pool of holders who have never self-custodied or staked. This is the population the wallet-activation and stRIF-staking targets address.


Team information

RootstockLabs is a key contributor to Rootstock, Bitcoin’s Financial Infrastructure for lending, yield and onchain capital markets. The global team develops and commercializes the institutional infrastructure that helps put Bitcoin to work as productive capital, partnering with leading custodians, asset managers and financial institutions to enable Bitcoin-backed lending, tokenized real-world assets and onchain financial strategies.

Rootstock is secured by over 80% of Bitcoin’s hash power and has maintained 100% uptime since 2018. Today, bitcoiners, builders and institutions use Rootstock across BTC-collateralized lending, stablecoins and emerging onchain capital markets. More than 200 dApps have been deployed on Rootstock, from BTCFi protocols like Sushiswap, Layerzero and Oku to major institutional players like Mercado Bitcoin, Animoca Brands and Paystand.


Team

Proposing entity RootstockLabs, submitting on behalf of the Rootstock builder ecosystem. RootstockLabs is the largest builder on Rootstock and will contribute all on-site staffing, coordination and logistics as an in-kind contribution. No grant funds are requested for travel, accommodation or staff time.

Technical capability on the ground RootstockLabs’ Buenos Aires engineering presence means the Hub is staffed by people who can actually help a developer deploy, not only explain.

Ecosystem presence RootstockLabs’ founding team and Rootstock network initial developers are expected on the ground for the conference and available to the Hub’s programming, a level of access no individual booth at this event can offer its cohosts.

RootstockCollective Foundation support Tamara Lerner attends on behalf of RootstockCollective Foundation, independently of the RootstockLabs delivery team, and will verify the on-site figures reported at Milestone 2. RootstockCollective is also represented on the stand itself, so attendees engage with the Collective directly.

Cohosting projects To be confirmed through the open call.


Traction and metrics

Part A: the venue’s traction

Labitconf’s metrics. 10.5K attendees, 420 international speakers, 256 talks, 16 countries, 7 stages, 58 sponsors, 26 universities and institutions in its reach. Labitconf sits inside Tech Week Buenos Aires: 10 days, 27 events, 100K+ attendees in 2025.

Relevant audience structure. A dedicated Developers stage, a technical Workshop stage, an Intro stage for newcomers, and a separate B2B business area. The event is already segmented along the two tracks this proposal targets.

Wider platform. Labitconf sits inside Tech Week Buenos Aires (21 Oct to 1 Nov), which drew over 100,000 attendees across 27 events in 2025. Exhibitors may run their own side events within that framework.

Market context (organiser’s figures, Chainalysis 2026). Argentina has a 20% crypto adoption rate, the highest in Latin America, and 80% of all LatAm crypto ownership sits in six countries with Argentina leading them.

Part B: RootstockLabs’ track record at this venue

RootstockLabs has had a presence at Labitconf since 2023 and appears on the event’s previous-editions sponsor wall. Three editions have produced a consistent pattern:

What this event delivers. Brand engagement: the 2025 booth narrative and the Still Early Café activation performed by RootstockLabs drove substantial engagement, and a join-our-Telegram merch mechanic produced measurable community growth. Thought leadership: RootstockLabs consistently secured speaking slots, interviews and press; the 2025 Buenos Aires programme generated over 15 media articles including 13 tier-1 outlets (combined with DevConnect BA, held the same fortnight). Partnerships: day one reliably produces integration and partner conversations.

What the audience tells us. The 2025 post-event review found the attending audience to be predominantly non-technical, and heavily retail on day two. That is a well-understood profile for this event, and it shapes what a stand can realistically convert: infrastructure speaks to builders, and this crowd is not primarily builders.

What changes this year. The Collective has a product this audience can act on directly. Staking takes ten minutes, requires no development work, and connects an attendee to the builders the treasury funds. That is a different proposition from anything available at this event before, and it is why this proposal sits with the Collective.


Grant request

Total requested: $20,000 USD-equivalent, paid in USDRIF per standard Collective disbursement, released across three milestones tied to acquisition and conversion outcomes rather than event costs. A progress report for each milestone is posted to the RootstockCollective Discourse forum during that milestone’s week.

Milestone 1: pre-event builder pipeline and secure space. $15,000 (75%, on approval)

  • Bilingual (ES/EN) “Rootstock Quickstart” onboarding kit published and distributed to Labitconf’s builder/developer attendee list

  • Secure builder hub to promote to RootstockCollective builders and confirm attendance, including applications from at least 3 builders to cohost alongside RootstockCollective

  • Builder Hub space design and on-site staffing plan finalized

Milestone 2: on-site Builder Hub activation. $3,000 (15%, on delivery of on-site KPIs)

30 to 31 October 2026, Buenos Aires

  • Staffed Builder Hub running structured 1:1 technical office hours, mainnet-deployment sessions and ecosystem workshops across both days

  • Live showcase slot for 3 to 5 existing Rootstock grant recipients, turning current grantees into ecosystem messengers on-site

  • Target: 40+ 1:1 technical sessions delivered; 25+ new wallet activations or testnet-to-mainnet deployments logged during the window

  • Staking campaign with 150+ new stakers in the total campaign period, each airdropped 20 RIF plus 0.000037 rBTC for gas so they can stake on the spot. Capped at 4,000 RIF and 0.0074 rBTC, enough for 200 wallets, funded by the Collective independently of this grant

Milestone 3: post-event conversion and reporting. $2,000 (10%, 30 days post-event)

  • Follow-up outreach converting Hub contacts into Discord members, grants-forum sign-ups or grant pre-applications. Target: 10+ pre-applications or forum threads opened

  • Public recap report published to the RootstockCollective Discourse forum during the milestone week, with a full KPI readout for stRIF-holder transparency

  • Case studies on 2 to 3 standout builders engaged at the Hub, published as ecosystem content


Mission and vision

This is not event sponsorship. RootstockCollective’s grants exist to fund measurable ecosystem growth: new wallets, new mainnet transactions, new builders shipping on Rootstock. The guidelines are explicit that funded work has to show that kind of outcome, not just visibility.

RootstockLabs organizes and staffs a Rootstock-branded community section at Labitconf, funded by RootstockCollective and representing the whole Rootstock community, and invites builders from across the ecosystem to cohost, showcasing their own projects to Labitconf’s attendees at a fraction of what an individual booth or sponsorship would otherwise cost each of them.

RootstockLabs handles the venue logistics, space design and on-site coordination end-to-end; cohosting builders simply bring their product and get direct, structured access to the real users, developers and investors in the room. That’s the growth mechanism: each cohosting builder walks away with new users and connections for their own project, and pooling the cost across many projects, alongside the grant, is what makes this dramatically cheaper, and more measurable, than any one project sponsoring alone.

LABITCONF is simply the highest-density concentration of exactly those people anywhere in Rootstock’s core LATAM market this year: 300+ speakers, thousands of attendees, 16+ countries represented. Rather than buying a sponsor logo or a booth, this proposal funds a shared, cohosted builder showcase that treats the conference as a distribution channel, not a destination: an open cohosting invitation and pre-event pipeline, an on-site activation measured in user connections and deployments rather than booth traffic, and a 30-day conversion window that feeds straight into the existing Collective Grants pipeline. Every dollar maps to a growth metric the community already tracks, wallets, deployments and grants-pipeline sign-ups, so this is accountable to stRIF holders in exactly the same way as any DeFi or tooling grant.


Product details

  • Physical. A Rootstock-branded community section representing the Rootstock community, funded by RootstockCollective and with the Collective represented on the stand, within (or adjacent to) Labitconf’s exhibitor zone. Built as a shared showcase space with rotating demo stations and presentation slots so multiple ecosystem builders can cohost and showcase their own projects to attendees, rather than a single passive booth

  • Cohosting model. RootstockLabs covers and runs the venue logistics, space design, staffing and on-site coordination; an open call invites RootstockCollective builders to apply for a cohosting slot, so participating in Labitconf costs each builder a fraction of what an individual booth or sponsorship would

  • Digital. QR-driven flow at each builder’s demo station linking attendees straight to that project’s product, plus a shared entry point to the Rootstock Developer Portal quickstart, testnet faucet and Collective Grants application page

  • Localization. All on-site and pre-event materials bilingual (ES/EN) for the LATAM audience

  • Integration. Attendee connections and sign-ups per cohosting project tracked centrally so results are auditable by the community after the event


Description

For builders. Grant-stage projects on Rootstock have products and no distribution. The cheapest independent presence at LATAM’s largest crypto event is $5,000 for two square metres, unreachable for a project operating on a $20 to 35K grant. The result is that the builders funded by the Collective are systematically absent from the region’s biggest room, while the ones who can self-fund buy their own booths. The ecosystem shows up fragmented, or not at all.

For the Collective. RootstockCollective has roughly 3,000 stRIF holders. Meanwhile 64% of Latin American crypto activity runs through centralised exchanges, a very large population of holders in Rootstock’s core region who have never self-custodied, let alone staked or voted. The largest annual concentration of those people walks past Rootstock every year without being converted.

The audience here is heavily retail and, per the 2025 review, predominantly non-technical. Infrastructure is a builder proposition, so a protocol stand has limited purchase on someone who is not going to write a contract. Staking is different: ten minutes, no development, and a visible link between a person’s stake and the builders it funds.

Solution

The visitor path. A conference attendee comes to the Hub, opens or connects a wallet, and stakes RIF. A screen shows which projects the Collective’s treasury is currently funding, and one of those founders is standing at the next table, demoing. The loop the Collective runs onchain, compressed into ten minutes and three metres.

The builder path. Rootstock ecosystem projects apply through an open call for a rotating half-day demo slot, with conference passes from the Collective’s allocation. A grant-stage project gets in front of 10,000 attendees for a fraction of the $5,000 entry price, and leaves with its own contacts, attributed and handed back.

RootstockCollective funds the space. RootstockLabs runs, staffs and coordinates it at no cost to the grant. Attribution is attached at the point of contact, a unique code per demo station, so both paths produce verifiable onchain outcomes rather than estimates.

Unique value proposition

  • One grant, a cohort’s distribution. Cost pooling means this funds reach for four to eight projects, not one.

  • No staffing cost. RootstockLabs contributes the people; every grant dollar goes to space, materials and incentives.

  • The mechanism is the product. This is not a stand that explains the Collective, it is the Collective’s own loop running live, with the funded builders physically present as proof.

  • Verifiable by anyone. The attributed address cohort is published; the community checks the chain rather than trusting a report.

Alternatives considered

Each builder sponsors individually. Cost to the Collective: $0. Reach for grant-stage builders: only self-funded projects. Outcome: fragmented presence, and the Collective’s own grantees excluded.

RootstockLabs-only booth. Cost to the Collective: $0. Reach: none. Outcome: brand reach without ecosystem participation or a retail conversion path.

Larger sponsor tier ($50 to 75K). Cost to the Collective: above the $35K cap. Reach: high. Outcome: priced on billboards and media naming, which fails the guidelines.

Equivalent spend on paid digital. Cost to the Collective: $20,000. Reach: none. Outcome: no staking conversion, unproven in-region, no builder benefit.

Do nothing. Cost to the Collective: $0. Reach: none. Outcome: no Collective presence in LATAM in 2026.

Cohosted Builder Hub (this proposal). Cost to the Collective: $20,000. Reach: 4 to 8 projects. Outcome: retained stakers and builder distribution, measured onchain.


Project roadmap

Phase 0: approval. 21 September to early October

  • KYB verification complete: w/c 21 Sept

  • Off-chain proposal published to the grants forum: 21 Sept

  • Community feedback window: 21 to 26 Sept

  • Live AMA with delegates: w/c 21 Sept

  • On-chain proposal submitted once the feedback window closes

Success metric: proposal approved and Milestone 1 released.

Phase 1: build and recruit. 21 September to 28 October

(runs in parallel with Phase 0)

  • Exhibitor slot conditionally held pending the vote, confirmed and paid on Milestone 1 release: w/c 21 Sept

  • Cohost open call published, with selection criteria: w/c 21 Sept

  • Cohost applications close: 8 October

  • Cohosting projects confirmed (minimum 4, including RootstockCollective): 15 October

  • Booth build and demo stations ordered: 16 October

  • Attribution infrastructure live and tested: 20 October

  • Bilingual quickstart kit and materials produced: 24 October

Success metrics: 4+ cohosting projects confirmed; attribution tested end-to-end against a live test stake before the event.

Phase 2: event. 29 October to 1 November

  • 29 Oct. Opening night: institutional and partner conversations

  • 30 Oct. Day 1: Hub open, programme weighted to builders and BD

  • 31 Oct. Day 2: Hub open, programme weighted to retail onboarding and staking

  • 1 Nov. Close: on-site figures collected and verified

Success metrics: cohost slots delivered as scheduled; on-site counts verified by the Collective’s representative; figures published within 7 days.

Phase 3: conversion. November

Follow-up to Hub contacts, cohost contact lists returned to each project, grants-pipeline introductions made.

Success metric: T+30 public report published to Discourse by 1 December, in the Milestone 3 week, with the full KPI readout.

Phase 4: retention, close-out and follow-up. December 2026 to May 2027

Success metrics: T+90 retention cohort published by 29 January 2027; community call held; unclaimed staking incentive balance returned to treasury; follow-up report published to Discourse in May 2027, covering long-term staker retention and the progress of the builders who cohosted.


Performance targets

Targets are reported across two tracks. In both, the retained figure is the headline; day-of counts are reported as context.

Track B: users (primary)

  • Wallet/staking flows completed on site: 150+ (context, not a KPI)

  • New stRIF stakers attributed to the event: 75+ (reported)

  • Still staked at 30 days: 55+ (reported)

  • Still staked at 90 days: 45+ (primary KPI)

  • Attributed wallets with 3+ transactions at 30 days: 40+ (secondary)

Measured against a base of approximately 3,000 stRIF holders, the 90-day figure represents a ~1.5% increase in the Collective’s staker base from a single two-day activation. Staking incentives are paid only against verified 90-day retained stakes; any unclaimed balance returns to the treasury.

Track A: builders

  • Cohosting projects: 4 minimum (including RootstockCollective), 5 target, 8 stretch

  • Technical conversations logged at the Hub: 40+

  • Testnet or mainnet deployments initiated on site: 10+

  • Grants-pipeline entries within 30 days (pre-applications or forum threads): 8+

  • Cohosts receiving their own attributed contact list: 100%

Funding efficiency

Value delivered is calculated against the cheapest independent presence available at this event, the $5,000 entry tier, plus the USD-priced conference passes included in our tier and distributed to cohosting builders ($1,950).

Against a Collective contribution of $20,000 in every case:

  • 4 cohosting projects: $21,950 value delivered, FES 1.10×

  • 5 cohosting projects (target): $26,950 value delivered, FES 1.35×

  • 6 cohosting projects: $31,950 value delivered, FES 1.60×

  • 8 cohosting projects (stretch): $41,950 value delivered, FES 2.10×

Four cohosting projects, including RootstockCollective, is the hard floor below which the Hub does not proceed. Five is the target and the point at which funding efficiency clears the 1.2× benchmark, and unspent funds return to the treasury below that number.

How outcomes are attributed

Attribution is built before the event, not reconstructed after it. Each cohost demo station carries a unique code; the staking flow carries event-tagged referral codes so each stake is attributable onchain. The attributed address cohort is published, so the community verifies results on-chain independently rather than relying on our report. The cohort is measured at T+0, T+30 and T+90. Day-of counts are verified on site by the Collective’s representative.

What we will not claim

Badge scans, booth footfall, social impressions and media reach are not reported as outcomes of this grant. They are not evidence of ecosystem value and we are not asking to be funded against them.


Conclusion

RootstockCollective has funded builders who have products and no way to reach the region where Rootstock’s users actually are. LABITCONF puts 10,000 of those users in one room, and the entry price for a builder to be there independently, $5,000 for two square metres, is more than most grant-stage projects can justify.

This proposal pools that cost. For $20,000, the Collective funds a shared Builder Hub that four to eight ecosystem projects cohost, run and staffed entirely at RootstockLabs, in which the Collective’s own loop runs live: stake, see what the treasury funds, meet the builder it funded.

Three editions at this event have shown us where its value sits: strong brand reach, consistent media and speaking coverage, and genuine partnership conversations on the institutional day. What has not been available until now is something an attendee can act on the same afternoon. Staking is exactly that, and it belongs to the Collective. That is what makes this year different.

Three commitments come with it. Outcomes are measured as retained stakers at 90 days, not activations on the day. Attribution is built before the event and the address cohort is published, so the community verifies the results on-chain rather than taking our word for them. And reporting is public: a readout at 30 days, a retention readout at 90, a follow-up in May 2027, and a community call, all posted to Discourse, with the final tranche paid at 30 days against verified conversion outcomes.

No costs are incurred before this vote. The exhibitor slot is held conditionally pending the outcome, and if the proposal is not approved, nothing is spent and the Hub does not take place. What is being decided here is whether the Collective wants a presence in its largest untapped market this year.

We ask delegates and stRIF holders to support this proposal. The open call for cohosting projects is will be live on the RootstockCollective Builders Telegram group, and the Collective’s members are the people best placed to tell us who should be in that space.


Social and community

6 Likes

Honestly, it’s hard to imagine LABITCONF without Rootstock. Among the vast universe of crypto events around the world, LABITCONF is the natural place where Rootstock simply has to be. Given the importance of the event and its geographic location, there is almost a symbiotic relationship between LABITCONF and Rootstock. This is the right place and the right moment to showcase Rootstock’s potential to users and builders, while also demonstrating to the broader crypto community the ecosystem’s success stories and highlighting the builders who are actively developing on the platform.

Naturally, we support this initiative, although we will continue reviewing the details of the proposal.

A few initial questions:

  • The Builder Hub would be located inside the main venue and remain open throughout the event, every day and during all event hours, correct?
  • What will be the approximate size of the Hub?
  • Are there plans to host activities with builders inside the Hub, or would those activities take place on the official stages?
1 Like

Hello!Thank you for your questions! Answering:
1- Yes
2- 6 x 4 meters
3- We can guarantee that activities will take place inside the Hub. Any activities outside it will be discussed with the organization on a case-by-case basis, depending on the builders’ specific needs.

1 Like

I support this proposal.

I have attended LABITCONF every year since 2022, and 2026 will be no exception. For me it is the Bitcoin event Latin America waits for all year — and the most important one in the region. I know the professionalism behind how it is run: serious organization, real audience density, and a focus on builders rather than noise. That is why Rootstock and the Collective should show up there together, not as a logo on a wall.

I also offer myself as a volunteer to help with the activities proposed for the Builder Hub on site — happy to lend a hand where it is useful.

Why this fits what the DAO should fund:

  1. It is not brand sponsorship. The milestones are tied to retained stakers, deployments, and grants-pipeline sign-ups — outcomes the collective already tracks — not footfall or impressions.

  2. Shared distribution for Collective builders. A solo booth at LABITCONF is expensive for a grant-stage project. A cohosted Hub (floor of 4 projects, target 5–8), with Labs covering staffing in-kind, is a more efficient way to get several builders in front of the same room.

  3. Market fit. Argentina leads LATAM adoption; LABITCONF concentrates both builders and retail users who have never self-custodied or staked. Running the collective loop live — stake, see what the treasury funds, meet a builder — is stronger than an abstract pitch.

  4. Accountability. Per-station attribution, an on-chain cohort the community can verify, on-site checks by the Foundation, public readouts at 30/90 days, and unused incentive balance back to the treasury. That is the right standard for stRIF holders.

I will stay close to how this proposal develops. I am in favor and look forward to supporting it when it goes on-chain.

1 Like

I like this proposal very much and support it. :grinning_face::raised_back_of_hand:

I’ve been following LABITCONF since 2022 and will be attending again this year — anything that grows Rootstock and Rootstock Collective in Latin America is exciting to me, and this kind of initiative is key for regional ecosystem growth.

My question is about Track B: the event’s own metrics show the attending audience is mostly operating from centralized exchanges. What’s the plan for onboarding that audience from “I hold crypto on an exchange” to actually staking stRIF? I work directly in crypto education in the region and would like to understand (and possibly help with) the strategy for closing that gap — self-custody, wallet setup, first staking transaction. My interest here is practical: if this onboarding approach works at LABITCONF, I’d like to replicate it at the other events I attend and in the classes and talks I regularly give throughout the year as a crypto educator.

1 Like

It’s great to see an event proposal on the forum again, especially one coming from Rootstock Collective itself. Having a strong presence at events across Latin America is essential to connect with local communities and showcase Rootstock’s potential to address real-world needs.

Money On Chain, as one of the leading protocols in the Rootstock ecosystem, will also be there. This is a valuable opportunity to strengthen Rootstock’s visibility in the region and show how applications built on Bitcoin can bring practical value to people’s everyday lives.

1 Like

The proposal requests $20,000 in USDRIF to run a shared Rootstock Builder Hub at LABITCONF Buenos Aires 2026. The Hub aims to connect Rootstock builders with users and developers through demos, technical sessions, wallet onboarding, and staking. Success is measured through retained stakers, technical conversations, deployments, and grants-pipeline activity rather than impressions alone.

Assessment:
A strong part of the proposal is its focus on measurable outcomes and on-chain attribution. The use of event-specific tracking, 30/90-day retention metrics, and public reporting should make the results easier for the community to verify.

My main concern is the funding structure. 75% of the grant is released at approval, while several of the most important outcomes are only demonstrated after the event. Also, the proposal’s own FES calculation ranges from 1.10× with four cohosting projects to 2.10× with eight, making the expected value at the minimum participation level less clear.

Here are my suggestions:

  • Consider tying part of the initial $15,000 to pre-event deliverables such as confirming the minimum number of cohosting projects and completing attribution infrastructure.
  • Clarify what happens if fewer than four qualified projects participate.
  • Explain the basis for the 75 new-staker and 45 90-day retention targets.
  • Clarify the minimum acceptable outcome for the Collective if the Hub achieves the four-project floor but does not approach the 2× FES target.

This would make the funding-to-outcome relationship clearer and give stRIF holders stronger milestones for evaluating the proposal.

Hello Jose,
We’ll follow the same approach as previous campaigns: guiding the person through the process personally, airdropping them RIF and rBTC, and teaching them to stake, explaining the benefits as we go.
I hope this answers your question. Thank you.

1 Like

Hello @RootstockLabs nice to see you on the forum. Thanks for putting the proposal together.

The proposal is more developed than a typical event request: the shared-builder model, proposed attribution, and post-event reporting give delegates a clearer basis to assess whether it produces follow-on ecosystem activity.

I have a question on how this proposal fits within the current grants framework. The guidelines list conferences, events, and sponsorships as excluded categories, and that standard was raised in the discussion of Meta Pool’s Build Buddies proposal. It would be helpful to clarify whether this is being considered an exception, or whether the builder-acquisition and measurable-outcome structure creates a distinction that future applicants could also rely on.

I would also welcome clarification on the proposed disbursement schedule. As a $20,000 Strategic-tier request, the $15,000 initial payment appears higher than the framework’s usual initial-tranche guidance.

If the Collective considers this type of event-linked builder activation to be within scope, a short amendment or published exception framework could make that distinction clear for future applicants. That would preserve the guidelines’ intent while giving delegates a consistent basis to assess comparable proposals.

2 Likes

I think this is a strong and well-structured proposal, especially the focus on making the Builder Hub more than just a presence at LABITCONF. The combination of builder exposure, user onboarding and measurable outcomes makes the initiative quite interesting from an ecosystem growth perspective.

I also think it’s important to highlight that Rootstock has been present at every LABITCONF edition for years, and I believe that continuity is something worth preserving. LABITCONF has consistently been a valuable opportunity for Rootstock to connect with the local ecosystem, builders and users, so having Rootstock involved again this year feels like an important part of maintaining that presence and momentum.

I particularly like the cohosting model, since it could give smaller or grant-stage projects access to an audience they probably wouldn’t be able to reach on their own. The attribution and 30/90-day retention metrics also make it easier for the community to evaluate the actual impact beyond event attendance or general visibility.

One thing I’d be interested in understanding better is how the cohosting projects will be selected. Will the selection be based mainly on the stage of the project, the type of product, its potential relevance to LABITCONF attendees, or a combination of criteria?

Thank you for the proposal. @RootstockLabs I see this as an interesting evolution of a standard event sponsorship, with a clearer focus on builder and staker outcomes than a typical event presence. Since it goes beyond a normal event sponsorship, I think it would be helpful to understand a few things about the arrangement and funding before assessing the proposal further.

The Hub is confirmed at 6×4 m. LABITCONF’s published sponsor tiers range from Satoshi ($5k) for a 2×1m space to Whale ($75k) for 6×6m. Given the Hub’s footprint and the proposal’s use of the $5,000 Satoshi tier as the benchmark for:

Could Rootstock Labs clarify how the actual sponsorship arrangement differs from this benchmark? It would also be helpful to understand how the remaining M1 budget is allocated across design, materials, and staffing coordination.

A few delegates have already raised questions about the 75% initial payment at M1 and how it compares with the framework’s usual initial-tranche guidance. Having more detail on the preparation costs and the deliverables tied to M1 would help address this concern.

My other main question is how this proposal fits within the current grant guidelines, which list conferences, events, and sponsorships as an excluded category. As Axia raised:

To be clear, I’m not opposed to event-based initiatives in general. I think the Builder Hub approach has some interesting elements. I’d just appreciate a little more clarity around the sponsorship arrangement, M1 deliverables, and how this fits within the grant framework so we can assess it more effectively.

1 Like

I’m in favor of this proposal :slight_smile:

I think the main objective is clear, and what I like most is the focus on staker retention. It’s not only about what happens during LABITCONF, but also how many users keep staking after 30 and 90 days. For me, this is important because it helps show if the people who start participating during the event actually stay involved afterwards.

The only thing I would keep an eye on is how all the metrics are presented at the end. There are several different targets, so it would be good if the final report is not complicated to understand.

My suggestion would be to keep the final report simple and show the targets next to the actual results. This way, stRIF holders and the community can quickly see what was achieved and if the goals were reached…

Overall, I think it’s a clear proposal :slight_smile:

Hello @Seviramar, thank you for your question:
Three things we’re weighing for the selection: ecosystem alignment first, priority goes to projects already funded through Collective grants, since part of the point is turning existing grantees into on-site messengers (the proposal earmarks 3 to 5 showcase slots for current grant recipients specifically).
Second, relevance to a LABITCONF audience, our 2025 post-event review showed the crowd skews retail and non-technical on day two, so we’re favoring projects that can tell their story in a two-minute demo to someone who isn’t a developer, alongside more technical projects for the builder track.
Third, readiness to actually staff a half-day rotating demo slot on their own, since the format only works if a project can run its own station unattended. Stage of the project (early vs. mature) matters less than whether there’s something live to show and a team that can be there.

1 Like

Today we had the AMA with @RootstockLabs, in case you didn’t have the chance to tune in, you can hear the recording here: https://x.com/i/spaces/1OxwbnAXZarJB?s=20

The X space was in Spanish.

2 Likes

Fair point that “conferences, events, sponsorships” reads as excluded on its face. Our read is that this isn’t sponsorship spend in the traditional sense (paying for brand exposure), it’s builder acquisition and staker conversion infrastructure that happens to be hosted at a conference, with cohosting partners and measurable KPIs attached. But that’s a framework question for the Collective more than something we should self-certify. We’d support a short published clarification distinguishing “event sponsorship” from “event-linked acquisition activation,” so future applicants aren’t guessing case by case.

1 Like

The Hub will be at least 6x4m (24m²) inside the main venue, and the organisers have been open to some flexibility on size. For comparison, LABITCONF’s 2026 tiers go from Satoshi ($5k, 2x1m) through Node ($12k, 3x2m), Full Node ($25k, 5x2m) and Bitcoin ($50k, 5x3m) up to Whale ($75k, 6x6m). By footprint, the Hub sits between Bitcoin and Whale. The full $20,000 request, which also covers design, materials and the quickstart kit, is below the price of the Full Node tier alone.

We use the $5,000 entry tier only as a floor for the value each cohost receives. In practice they get more than that. The Hub isn’t a few individual booths placed side by side. It’s one shared space with a common programme, and that shared setup is where most of the value comes from. Location matters too. Entry-level booths rarely get the placement that larger spaces do, so a grant-stage project gets a spot in the Hub it couldn’t buy on its own.

The M1 tranche is what lets us secure the space with LABITCONF. The exhibitor slot is held on condition of the vote and is only confirmed and paid once M1 is released, so nothing is spent unless the proposal passes. The rest of M1 goes to space design, the booth build and demo stations, the bilingual (ES/EN) quickstart kit and materials, and the tracking setup for attribution. No grant funds go to staff, travel or accommodation, which RootstockLabs covers in kind. The staking and airdrop pool is funded separately by the Collective and isn’t part of this grant.

Thank you for your question!

1 Like

Thank you for sharing this proposal. I believe the Rootstock Builder Hub at LABITCONF 2026 could be a valuable opportunity to introduce Rootstock to new developers and expand the Bitcoin DeFi ecosystem.

From a Japanese community perspective, I would particularly like to see more initiatives that help people who are unfamiliar with DeFi understand Rootstock through practical demonstrations.

For example, a live demonstration showing how to connect a wallet, obtain rBTC, and perform a simple token swap could make the technology more accessible to beginners.

I would also suggest including a clear onboarding path for visitors after the event, such as a beginner-friendly guide, educational resources, and links to the official Rootstock community.

Regarding the proposed $20,000 budget, it would be helpful to provide a more detailed breakdown of the planned expenses and measurable outcomes.

How many developers and new users does the team aim to reach? How will engagement and onboarding be measured after the event?

I would also appreciate clarification on whether the educational materials and demonstrations could be made available online for international communities, including Japan.

This would allow people who cannot attend LABITCONF in person to benefit from the initiative.

Thank you for considering these suggestions. I look forward to seeing how this proposal develops.