Hi @krngill — thank you for the detailed responses throughout this thread. The other delegates have done a great job clarifying many key questions and your willingness to engage openly and adjust the proposal has been really encouraging.
Just one question from my side before the vote closes: as you scale to 100 events, it would be helpful to understand the broader funding picture. Will you maintain the one sponsor per event policy? Is Fedi still a sponsor? Are there other sponsors already committed or in conversation for specific events? If so, have any of them made asks around content, activities, or branding that could affect how Rootstock is represented?
Regarding the revised presentation deck including Rootstock, it would be useful to add a rough event agenda — a simple time breakdown of how the 2–3 hours are structured to get a better sense of dedicated airtime.
None of this is meant to be restrictive — the initiative is exciting. Thanks again for all the transparency so far!
Hi @krngill I voted against this proposal because the scale does not seem feasible. In the Bitcoin India Tour deck that you shared, I can see that you completed 76 events in 2025. In this proposal, you are proposing 55 events over 5 months (April to August). That is 11 events/month compared to 6.3 events/month in 2025.
I would support this proposal if you (1) reduced the scale and (2) provided information on the size of your events team so it will be easier to assess the feasibility of hosting all of the events.
Thanks for understanding and best of luck to you. We appreciate your work as a Rootstock ambassador!
This is a really important point that @Ignas brings up. We should move away from “vanity” metrics like wallet sign ups and attendees. The metrics that matter are conversion rates, retention, and customer lifetime value.
@krngill The Collective will definitely welcome your thoughts here, as a Rootstock ambassador, on how event organizers can start to track and report on these metrics. How can The Collective support you?
We voted against this proposal. We want to be very clear that we have nothing against the author or the proposal itself, which we in fact consider solid. However, this type of initiative is very difficult to assess in terms of KPIs and return on allocated capital—specifically, whether the requested grant would generate a tangible return for Rootstock in the form of new active users or new developers building within the ecosystem. In this case, we find it particularly challenging to evaluate or project that impact.
At the moment, delegates, the Collective, and the Lab are beginning a dialogue that we believe will be highly productive in establishing priorities and aligning around the network’s strategic objectives, as well as how the Collective can best contribute to them. Within that process, it will also become clearer whether initiatives of this kind are aligned with those strategic goals and how their KPIs and ROI should be measured to ensure a more efficient allocation of funds.
While we appreciate the continued effort from the team, at this stage this type of initiative is still part of an ongoing discussion between delegates and the Lab in terms of strategic priority.
Given that alignment on direction is not yet fully clear, we do not yet have sufficient clarity on how initiatives of this nature fit into Rootstock’s overall strategy—particularly in areas that can drive more measurable impact to the ecosystem. As such, we believe it is important to first establish clearer alignment on priorities to ensure that capital allocation is aligned with Rootstock’s focus. For this reason, we have decided to vote against this proposal at this time.
I think I was the only delegate to vote in favor of this proposal.
Just wanted to register here my rationale for voting in favor, inviting the OP to further work on this proposal and resubmit.
I acknowledge the issues my colleagues flagged around soft KPIs, lack of Rootstock-specific content, and unclear impact measurement. That said, looking at the updated proposal, I think the team’s operational track record across 76+ events speaks clearly to execution ability. A lot of the presentation materials, marketing collateral, and Rootstock-specific content can be developed after a proposal is approved.
Worth noting my experience with Ipe Village. I put in a lot of effort to make the best presentation and marketing collateral I could, post proposal approval.
At $3,000 for Milestone 1 targeting 15 events and 2,500+ attendees, I think this is a low-risk starting point. Continuation toward the full $15,000 via Milestone 2 would be entirely contingent on M1 results, which is exactly how milestone-based grants work.
I’d encourage the OP to engage further with delegates, address the feedback, and consider resubmitting a refined version focused on an MVP scope around Milestone 1. And I encourage the other delegates to consider if ~$3000 could be a good risk adjusted MVP to obtain results, and decide if it’s worth further disbursements.