Thank you , @ChronoTrigger for putting this proposal together. While we appreciate the effort to bring Rootstock to such an unique opportunity such as Ipê Village, we do not support this proposal. Our position is based on the following strategic concerns:
As this is the third proposal/sentiment check for events funding in the last two weeks, we are concerned that your own comments last week expressed a need for a combined strategy versus a one off approval on events. Something that we support.
As Tamara recently noted and on the TG group, Rootstock has been moving away from these types of isolated sponsorships.
We fully align with this direction. Without a comprehensive, unified event strategy developed in coordination with Rootstock Labs, we cannot evaluate which events deserve priority. Approving one-off grants in a vacuum, especially three in a single two week window, doesn’t feel like a good use of our treasury. And with our own experience with running events, and as Tamara has also already noted, there is a very high cost (fixed and variable expenses, in addition to sponsorship) + very low ROI for the majority of these events.
In addition, with our review of this proposal, it has a very high CAC for a low ROI. The financial metrics of this proposal do not present a strong, measurable ROI case. With a $6,500 spend for a maximum of 80 participants, the cost to “acquire” a single builder’s attention (CAC) is at minimum $81.25. If engagement follows typical trends and only 40 builders (i.e. being conservative at 50%) actively participate, that cost jumps to $162.50 per builder. Spending over $160 per person for “brand awareness” within a niche audience does not move the needle for our on-chain growth. Simply increasing the prize pool would only further inflate the total spend without solving the high acquisition cost or the narrow funnel problem.
The $3,500 “coordination” budget represents greater than 50% of the total request. As a matter of basic financial standards, we cannot support a lump sum grant request for “on-site presence” that lack any granular breakdown of expenses. Any funds not going directly to builder rewards must be rigorously justified with clear, performance-based KPIs.
And echoing the concerns of @axia and @Ignas , what specific mechanism ensures these projects move to Mainnet? Proposed integrations like RNS or social graphs could be considered low-utility wins compared to the core infrastructure Rootstock needs to drive $rBTC velocity. Without a defined incubation phase, we risk funding one-off (i.e. shelfware) projects that provide no lasting value to the Collective once the event ends.
Finally beyond “number of submissions,” what is the target for on-chain activity (transactions, TVL, or users) that would make this $6,500 investment a success in your view? It’s a narrow funnel in our opinion, as this event is capped at 80 Architects builders. Spending $6,500 to reach 80 people is a high CAC that doesn’t translate to strong ROI to increasing transactions, deployed use cases, retained builders, and long-term activation within the Rootstock Collective.