Hello @juanipodesta and thank you so much for this detailed proposal and for the follow-up regarding the KPIs. While we appreciate this effort to bring a high-visibility event like CryptoVendimIA to the Collective, we have concerns regarding the high cost of this sponsorship, as also noted by @axia and @tamlerner . In addition, we have expressed this previously for another current event proposal, that the majority of events have high CAC but very low ROI. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of events, unless you have funds to burn.
Specifically, we have have concerns regarding these issues:
-
The KPI of 500–800 new active wallets is a strong target, but we noticed the onboarding is specified “via Beexo.” To ensure true ecosystem decentralization and avoid any vendor lock-in, could the onboarding process be wallet-agnostic instead? And how will the activation support users who prefer other Rootstock-compatible wallets (e.g., Metamask, Ledger, or Enkrypt)? We must ensure we are building for the Rootstock network as a whole.
-
You mentioned 50% of the funding is tied to an Impact Report. Self-reported data is often difficult for the DAO to audit effectively. Would the team be willing to provide a public Dune Dashboard or a similar real-time analytics link? We need to track the 500+ wallets and their subsequent transaction history on Mainnet to verify that these are genuine users and not just one-time bot/POAP claims.
-
The 5–10 Mini Apps target is a good start, and we appreciate the milestone based prize distribution (30 days post event). What is the specific bridge plan to funnel these winners into the Rootstock Grants Program? We’d like to see a structured transition plan that ensures these up to 10 projects, have a path toward becoming long-term contributors to Rootstock TVL.
-
The speaker lineup features impressive names like Jonatan Loidi and Mateo Salvato. While they are great for general tech prestige, they are not specifically BTCFi or Solidity focused. And with the $12,500 ask, how do we ensure the Institutional Track moves beyond general innovation talk and into RWA conversations? Out of the 20+ universities involved, how many have committed to the technical workshops specifically? We need to ensure the 1,500 attendees includes a high density of actual smart-contract developers. This aligns to our concerns about a high CAC (Customer acquisition cost) vs. the expense ($12,500 proposal request), i.e. the ROI.
-
As you stated, you mentioned that you’re currently a Rootstock Ambassador. We need to be very clear on how this grant differs from your existing responsibilities. Is this work being done in addition to your Ambassador mandate, and how do we ensure no double-billing of efforts? Can you provide some transparency on the differences between your Ambassador activities and how they are different from this proposal request?
-
And finally, regarding the additional $1,000 for “La Bitcoineta,” this feels like a late addition. While the branding is interesting, we’re concerned it may dilute focus from the main technical KPIs of the five day event. We would prefer to see that $1,000 re-allocated toward higher builder prizes or technical documentation for the workshops. Or just keep it simple, and remove this additional activity.
Thanks, and looking forward to hearing more details!