Update: Proposed Adjustment Before Submitting Milestone 3
Before submitting Milestone 3 onchain, I’d like to get feedback from the community on a proposed adjustment to how part of the budget is deployed.
In addition to the existing Milestone 3 scope, I’m proposing to allocate an additional $2,000 toward supporting live All-or-Nothing campaigns that are close to reaching their funding goal, bringing the total requested amount for Milestone 3 to $6,000.
The reasoning is straightforward: the success of All-or-Nothing crowdfunding is tightly tied to visible, real-world successes. Early completed campaigns become the strongest proof points for this model. They create the first credible success stories, strengthen future promotion and documentation, and make it much easier for new creators and platforms to trust and adopt AON.
This funding would be used selectively, only for campaigns that are already near completion and where a small push can turn a near-miss into a successful example.
I’d love to hear:
Whether this approach makes sense to you
Any concerns around how this support should be structured
Suggestions on guardrails or criteria for allocating these funds
Appreciate the feedback, and thanks again for the continued support.
From my side, I’m supportive of the proposed +$2k adjustment to Milestone 3. At this stage, All-or-Nothing adoption is best driven by real completed campaigns, and using a small, targeted amount to help near-complete campaigns cross the finish line makes sense as part of a go-to-market milestone. It’s also worth noting that the recent AON launch already shows solid early signal (around 18k views, 100+ likes, 40+ reposts), which reinforces that leaning into M3 now is timely.
More broadly, this grant is shaping up as a strong example of what infrastructure grants should look like: open-source, reusable code, shipped and deployed to mainnet, with clear documentation and consistent public updates. In that context, extending M3 slightly to capitalize on real-world traction feels reasonable.
I don’t see an issue with allocating an additional $2k to supporting campaigns that are close to reaching their funding goals. Great job so far with your first 2 milestones.
I would encourage delegates to take a look at this tweet (and amplify!) from Geyser. Make sure to watch the video in the comment where the wesatoshi card is used to pay for a beer in Sicily. https://x.com/geyserfund/status/2011830072924115231?s=20
Stelios, thanks for asking for feedback before submitting Milestone 3 onchain, and congratulations on what’s been delivered so far.
A few thoughts that may be worth considering:
Signal & trust: Crowdfunding works best as a market signal. Creating “artificial success” risks blurring the line between organic demand and subsidized outcomes, which can weaken credibility if not handled carefully. False validation of projects that miss their ALL objective may mask real issues for both backers and creators — sometimes NOTHING is the right signal.
Incentives: If creators expect near-complete campaigns to be rescued, this could unintentionally shift incentives toward weaker planning or outreach.
Process & transparency: How would campaigns be selected (objective criteria, % funded, number of backers)? Who would decide, and would allocations be public and transparent?
If this were considered, possible guardrails could include:
Top-ups clearly labeled as “Platform-Seeded”
A tight cap (e.g. ~10% of the goal), and only after ~90% organic funding is reached
Clear disclosure of any related-party interests
Considering a fee waiver from Geyser instead of (or alongside) direct cash support
Thanks for the great insights here, and appreciate you asking for feedback before submitting Milestone 3.
From our side, we’d only support this approach under very tight conditions, specifically to avoid artificial success signals and preserve the integrity of All-or-Nothing.
In practice, that means:
Support would only apply to campaigns that have already reached ~90% organically and are close to closing (1-2 days away) and need no more than $1k per project (maximum).
The intent is not to rescue weak campaigns, but to help strong, community-backed projects cross the finish line
Any support would be positioned as community amplification at the very end, not a substitute for creator outreach or demand
Also important to note: success begets success, and we want to help support success to have those success stories needed to create more creator demand for great projects.
The key test for us is whether the community has already clearly spoken. If a project cannot get close to the finish line on its own, then “nothing” is still the correct signal. We would not want to blur that line.
So it’s really about converting near-complete, community-validated efforts into visible, real-world successes that can serve as credible proof points for AON.
We agree on the importance of transparency and guardrails - so we can add comments to this Post whenever these funds get allocated. If they do not get used for this use case, the funds will be used for other marketing endeavors - such as more marketing content or amplifying the mini-documentary.
Thanks again for the great points.
Based on the feedback, I feel confident to submit this project onchain tomorrow morning. Wish us luck!
Stelios,
Thanks for your reply on the additional $2k request.
As Milestone 3 is currently up for vote, could you please share the links to the completed Milestone 3 deliverables as originally scoped (prior to the proposed adjustment)?
I did see a presentations link shared by @Kaf_Anode — please confirm whether that is intended to count as the Milestone 3 mini-documentary.
Thanks — this would be helpful as we consider the vote.
Edit / clarification: Upon reviewing further, see that Milestone 3 vote is intended to approve the disbursement based on commitment to deliver, rather than proof of completed deliverables. Will be glad to track progress
We are glad to see the progress your team has made and multiple successful campaigns on your platform. We just voted for the milestone 3 proposal, but we have one concern on a milestone 2 deliverable.
As @Axiabriefly touched on this topic, from our perspective, this milestone should aim for achieving an integration with platforms other than Geyser. Have you discussed any potential integrations with other platforms?
The Milestone 2 deliverable states: “ At least one platform integrates this AON functionality through a live project launch” - here Geyser is not mentioned or excluded. We are sorry this was a source of confusion. The reason for this is that the Grant was not submitted by Geyser per se but by Stelios and Mick as individuals (as per Rootstock Collective request). This was then open sourced in order for anyone to use this functionality.
Milestone 3 is similarly focused on spreading the word about this Open Source AON functionality broadly and mentioning any platform that will integrate it.
As Geyser, we’re working on ways to make it easier to implement for other platforms, but are currently prioritizing helping creators to on-board and launch AON projects.
Hope this helps, and happy to answer any further questions.
The open architecture here sets a good precedent. Instead of building a single integration, you’re building infrastructure that can compound across the ecosystem.
I hope the extra marketing funds help fostering visibility and adoption.
Curious to see what other platforms pick this up alongside Geyser.
At least one platform integrates this AON functionality through a live project launch” - here Geyser is not mentioned or excluded. We are sorry this was a source of confusion. The reason for this is that the Grant was not submitted by Geyser per se but by Stelios and Mick as individuals (as per Rootstock Collective request). This was then open sourced in order for anyone to use this functionality.