[2605 RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal – Multi-Ambassador Extension M1 & M2

Grants & Incentives
1

1. Overview

1.0.1. Proposal Overview

Following the successful completion of the RootstockCollective Ambassador Program, this proposal seeks DAO approval to extend the engagement of two active ambassadors:

  • Ambassador in India: M1 - 1-year extension, after a successful 3-month pilot program.

  • Ambassador in Venezuela: M2 - 1 year extension, after a successful M1.

Both ambassadors have demonstrated strong contributions across community growth, content creation, and ecosystem engagement. This proposal consolidates their renewals into a single framework to streamline governance and ensure continuity.

1.1.1. Discontinue

After evaluating Milestone 1, we’ve decided to continue the program with one ambassador from Venezuela. While both ambassadors (Argentina & Venezuela) contributed during M1, the renewal focuses on a more streamlined, efficient structure based on performance, alignment with current priorities, and the evolving needs of the program.

As a result, the next phase will proceed with one ambassador, and the engagement of Argentina’s Ambassador will not be extended.

2. Scope of the Program

The scope, objectives, and operational structure remain consistent with the original program design:

Ambassador in Venezuela - Original Proposal: [2510 RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal 1-Year Extension M1

Ambassador in India - Original Proposal: [2509 Grant Proposal] Searching for Collective Ambassadors

Ambassadors will continue to:

  • Represent RootstockCollective in local and online events

  • Advocate for the Collective’s governance and ecosystem growth

  • Create educational and community-driven content

  • Moderate and engage across Telegram, Discord, and Discourse

3. Compensation & Duration

3.0.1 Ambassadors:

Two Ambassadors:

  • Ambassador in India

  • Ambassador in Venezuela

3.0.2. Payment:

Up to 1,000 USDRIF per month per ambassador, based on performance.

3.0.3. Platform:

We’re using BrandChamp as our ambassador platform, where contributors earn points by completing verified tasks that support the growth of the community. Points are tracked on a monthly basis and reset at the start of each new cycle, ensuring ongoing engagement and fair participation. Compensation is fully performance-based, meaning rewards depend on the level of activity and contribution rather than being guaranteed. Top-performing ambassadors can earn up to a maximum monthly payout of $1,000 USDRIF by reaching the highest point tier.

3.0.4. Duration:

  • Ambassador in India: 12 months (with a 6-month performance review)

  • Ambassador in Venezuela: 6 months (Milestone 2)

3.0.5. Funding Source:

RootstockCollective Treasury

4. Activity Report & Proof of Payments

This section presents the final reports from the latest pilot phases for both ambassadors, including proof of payments, deliverables, and qualitative insights.

4.0 Proof of Payments

4.0.1.Ambassador in India:

1st payment: Etherscan

2nd payment: Etherscan

3rd payment: Etherscan

4.0.2. Ambassador in Venezuela:

1st payment: Etherscan

2nd payment: Etherscan

3rd payment: Etherscan

4th payment: Etherscan

5th payment: Etherscan

6th payment: Etherscan

4.1 Social Media Contributions

4.1.1. Ambassador in India - Activity Report:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1123YjnAVEP3vGigzEGY3FHQw0qf0s7Vfa4JtZrL9XyE/edit?usp=sharing

4.1.2. Ambassador in Venezuela - Activity Report:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T5FIX5vA5CM_CQNYqmCtoXqUq4eJRiQI6fh29xRYCz8/edit

4.2 Content Creation

4.2.1. Ambassador in India - Videos:

4.2.2. Ambassador in Venezuela - Articles:

4.2.3. Ambassador in Venezuela - Videos:

4.3 Spaces & Sessions:

4.3.1. Ambassador in India - Academic Sessions / Events:

  • IIT Patna: 26 attendees | 30 registered

  • JECRC University Jaipur: 201 attendees | 652 registered

  • Bitcoin Meetup: BOSS Summit, Dharamshala

4.3.2. Ambassador in Venezuela - X Spaces:

4.4 Community Meetups

4.4.1. Ambassador in India:

4.4.2. Ambassador in Venezuela:

4.5 Summary & Impact

Both ambassadors have played a key role in expanding RootstockCollective’s global presence through localized activations, educational content, and consistent community engagement.

  • Ambassador in India successfully activated the India region through university tours, meetups, and onboarding efforts, reaching 300+ participants and generating new stakers.

  • Ambassador in Venezuela contributed through quality moderation, high-volume content production, X Spaces, and educational resources, improving accessibility and onboarding for new users.

Together, their contributions demonstrate strong execution across different regions and validate the Ambassador Program as a scalable growth mechanism for RootstockCollective.

5. Voting Options

YES - Approve the continuation of the RootstockCollective Ambassador Program for both ambassadors.

NO - Do not continue.

4 Likes
Rootstock Collective Governance at a Glance 26-05-07
2

We didn’t see the pilot phase of the Rootstock Ambassador India program being shared on the forum. Where did this recruitment process take place?

It would also be helpful to understand what criteria Rootstock uses to select countries for the ambassador program, is this based on existing traction or broader strategic priorities, and what are the current strategic priorities of the Rootstock Collective?

3

Thank you for the comment and questions!

As mentioned in the post above, here is the original proposal.

The initial recruitment process was conducted through direct outreach and existing network connections, as we were testing the structure, expectations, and outcomes before scaling it further.

In terms of geographic focus, our intention was to strengthen RootstockCollective’s presence in Asia. While we initially aimed to onboard ambassadors from multiple countries in the region, we didn’t manage to recruit from the target locations. We ultimately moved forward with an ambassador from India, also taking into consideration that Devcon, one of the largest Web3 events this year, is being hosted there, giving us the opportunity to activate on the ground while tapping into the country’s strong and growing Web3 ecosystem.

More broadly, country selection is a mix of:

  • Existing ecosystem traction

  • Strategic opportunities (e.g. major events, local communities)

  • Ability to activate and grow a local presence

From a strategic standpoint, the Ambassador Program is focused on expanding awareness of RootstockCollective and driving meaningful participation through offline and online activations, meetups, events, conferences, and community-building efforts.

Our north star remains staker growth. The pilot in India has been a strong signal in that direction, with tangible results achieved within just three months.

1 Like
4

Hi @Georgia!

We were impressed by the content output of the ambassador from Venezuela. We understand that this is likely the main reason why she is being proposed to continue representing Rootstock in the LATAM region. That said, we’d like to ask: will the ambassador role in Argentina be deprecated under the assumption that LATAM can be covered by a single ambassador, or is there an intention to eventually onboard another candidate for that territory? As we’ve mentioned in every opportunity we have, SEEDGov is based in LATAM, particularly in Argentina, so if there is no local ambassador, we’re happy to support in any way needed in the ground.

This is absolutely essential: this year Devcon 8 will take place in Mumbai, one of the flagship global gatherings of the Ethereum ecosystem and blockchain ecosystem in general, bringing together thousands of builders, researchers, and industry leaders . In that context, having local presence is essential to fully leverage the opportunity for Rootstock.

Sorry, this link is not working.

5

Thanks for raising this. The decision not to proceed with the ambassador from Argentina was mainly based on performance against our north star metric: staker growth. While Argentina has a very strong ecosystem and a lot of potential opportunities, we did not see the expected progress after the 3-month pilot period and the following 6 months of M1 participation from this ambassador.

We don’t plan to assume that the entire LATAM region can be covered by a single ambassador long-term. At the same time, while we currently have an ambassador from Venezuela covering LATAM, her strengths are more focused on moderation and community operations rather than ecosystem expansion activities such as meetups, events, and broader awareness initiatives for RootstockCollective across the region. We absolutely recognise the importance of local presence, especially in key ecosystems like Argentina. We could revisit the possibility of having an ambassador specifically for Argentina.

We also appreciate SEEDGov’s willingness to support locally and stay involved on the ground. That context and regional presence are definitely valuable for the ecosystem overall.

Sorry for this! Here you go: [2509 Grant Proposal] Searching for Collective Ambassadors | RootstockCollective

1 Like
6

Hi @Georgia, thank you for the proposal.

I noticed that the original India proposal had clear quantitative KPIs such as minimum 1 meetup/month, 1 X Space/month, social posts, and new staker targets but the Venezuela proposal didn’t have equivalent commitments. Now in this renewal, those measurable targets seem to be gone for both ambassadors.

I think it’s worth aligning on consistent, verifiable KPIs for both regions going forward.

On India’s work pilot results, Bangalore hitting 100% attendance is a great sign, but JECRC had 652 registrations with only 201 showing up. What do you think drove that gap, and which activities felt most valuable? Would love to hear what you’d double down on this renewal.

On Venezuela, impressed by the content output, videos and articles fit well for LATAM. One thing I’m curious about is the Caracas meetup only had 9 attendees after 6 months of work. Do you have a specific plan to scale in-person presence in the next milestone?

7

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and questions.

Regarding the KPIs, in the very first ever Ambassador Program proposal we already included measurable KPIs and deliverables:
https://gov.rootstockcollective.xyz/t/2509-rootstockcollective-ambassador-proposal-searching-for-collective-ambassadors/590

We also continued tracking and reporting those results throughout the program. You can find detailed data and performance metrics in the 1-year renewal report for Milestone 1 as well:
https://gov.rootstockcollective.xyz/t/2510-rootstockcollective-ambassador-proposal-renewal-proposal-1-year-extension/631

At this stage, BrandChamp has become our main platform for ambassador management and task tracking, which makes KPI monitoring much more straightforward. We continuously evaluate KPIs, task structures, points allocation, task frequency, and what makes sense depending on the timeline and each region’s realities.

For the question regarding India’s KPI structure and the comparison between the India and Venezuela proposals, I’ll let @krngill reply directly since he is the best person to provide deeper context on the local execution and outcomes there.

Regarding Venezuela and the in-person meetup attendance: Venezuela has been facing a very unstable situation during the last months, so we intentionally decided not to focus on onsite events there for the time being.

One thing I strongly believe in is allowing ambassadors to focus primarily on the areas where they deliver the most value. The Venezuela ambassador’s strongest contribution has been moderation, community support, and content efforts, where she has consistently performed very well while still contributing across other tasks too. On the other hand, the India ambassador’s strongest area is organizing meetups and events, which is why the execution naturally differs between regions.

For us, the goal is not forcing identical outputs across all ambassadors, but enabling each regional lead to maximize impact based on their strengths and local conditions.

1 Like
8

Hi @Ignas

About the JECRC event, actually, the venue capacity was only 200, and it was completely full, so we were not able to accommodate more people.

One activity in my case, which stands out, was going through different ideas they can implement and letting them go through proposals already submitted.

1 Like
9

Thanks for the clarifications, really helpful context @Georgia @krngill

On Venezuela, totally understand the decision to focus on content and moderation given the local situation. Just think it’s worth mentioning that context upfront in future proposals, since without it the meetup numbers read as underperformance rather than an intentional call.

On JECRC, good to know the venue was actually at capacity :), that changes things a lot. Definitely worth including that detail in the report next time!

1 Like
10

Thanks for putting this together, @Georgia, and for the clarifications on the JECRC venue capacity and the staker-growth call on Argentina. Those resolved the substantive questions for us, and we appreciate the work both ambassadors have delivered.

There are two reasons we’d suggest holding this vote rather than moving forward now.

First is procedural: the proposal moved from forum thread to on-chain in roughly two days without an AMA. The FAQ thread recommends thorough community discussion before formal submission on-chain, and a 2-day window on a $12k disbursement falls short of that even read as a non-binding norm.

The second is timing. V3.2 was published yesterday and codifies what the Collective funds and how impact is measured. The ambassador role’s event-shaped deliverables (university tours, meetups) sit cleanly in V3.2’s hard exclusion on events; the content and education deliverables are conditionally excluded depending on whether they show measurable conversion. We’re not claiming the program is excluded under V3.2 (staker-growth as a north-star metric is one credible answer to the conversion question). But the overlap is large enough that this is the right moment to revisit how the program is scoped, measured, and aligned with the new framework, rather than to extend it for 6 to 12 months under the prior structure.

Concretely, take the next few weeks to align the ambassador-program design with V3.2’s posture, then re-submit. @tamlerner, would value your read on whether the Foundation intends ambassador renewals to inherit V3.2’s grant-policy gates going forward, or to be evaluated under a separate framework.

11

gm @Georgia, maybe this isn’t the best way to ask, but since we’re talking about the ambassador program, is it still active?

Several months ago, I applied but did not receive a response.

Are there any plans to expand the program or test additional pilots in the LATAM? Thanks.

12

Thank you a lot for the thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to review the proposal in depth. I understand the concern around the speed of the process compared to other proposals, and I also acknowledge the point regarding the AMA. In future renewal cycles, we can make sure that step is included more explicitly as part of the process.

I also want to clarify an important distinction regarding V3.2. Ambassadors and Delegates are separate programs that use the governance infrastructure (the dApp and treasury), but they operate under their own frameworks rather than under the Grants Guidelines directly. V3.2 specifically governs grants, which is why there may appear to be an overlap in some areas, while the operational logic and evaluation structure of ambassador initiatives remain distinct.

The reason this proposal moved faster than usual is mainly that the Ambassador Program is not a new initiative starting from zero, but an ongoing operation that has already been active, delivering results, and requiring continuity in order to keep momentum. A pause between cycles directly impacts planning, community relationships, educational initiatives, and the consistency of regional efforts that have been built over time. We wanted to avoid creating operational gaps for ambassadors who are already actively representing and supporting the ecosystem on the ground.

That said, even within those two days, we received substantial community feedback, answered multiple questions publicly, and added clarifications around KPIs, venue capacity, growth metrics, and expected outcomes. The intention was never to bypass discussion, but rather to maintain continuity while remaining responsive to community input.

Appreciate you raising these points constructively!

1 Like
13

gm! And thank you for the question :raising_hands:

Yes, the Ambassador Program is still active. First of all, feel free to DM me on Telegram: @gwgwvas.

At the moment, we’re mainly focused on expanding in Asia, but I’m always open to discussions and exploring opportunities in other regions as well, including LATAM. I’d be happy to have a conversation with you.

Also, apologies if you didn’t receive a response previously. We’ve received many applications over time, but I appreciate you reaching out again.

1 Like
14

Thanks, @Georgia. The framework distinction is fair: ambassadors aren’t grants, and the V3.2 grants policy doesn’t directly govern the program.

The activity reports behind this summary document outputs (event attendance, content count, X Spaces sessions). What’s missing is the metric you’ve already named: you’ve described staker growth as the program’s north-star and cited it as the basis for not extending Argentina. The original program proposal set 5–10 new stakers in active months as the benchmark; “tangible results” and “did not see expected progress” are qualitative stand-ins for what should be a count.

For the renewal vote, can you share actual new-staker counts per ambassador with the on-chain evidence supporting them where attribution is possible, and the Argentina figures that informed the cutoff decision?

15

Thank you for the detailed proposal, its supporting information and for engaging with the community’s questions throughout this thread. Two observations:

1. The north star needs a proper definition
Staker growth is named as the program’s north star on several occasions and cited as the basis for discontinuing Argentina. But as a metric, “staker growth” remains somewhat underspecified. This goal merits a clearer definition to be effective, for example:

  • New wallets staking for the first time, or any staking activity in a given period?

  • Is there a minimum stake quantity that counts?

  • Does length of retention matter?

  • Does growth in an existing staker’s position count toward the target?

    Without this definition, the program may not report rigorously, the DAO may not verify claims, and decisions may not always be evaluated for consistency. The 5–10 new stakers per active month referenced in the Asia proposal is a useful starting point, but needs further definition to be meaningful.

It is also worth noting that the user journey from awareness to staking is important to pay attention to. Defining the staking profile we are targeting, and mapping which stage of the journey the ambassador program addresses, would make it possible to set realistic conversion expectations and measure progress against them.

2. Opportunity to task ambassadors with understanding the user journey from onboarding to staking
@Tane has already raised the issue that the program currently tracks activity rather than outcomes. He requested whatever staker data that exists and we support that as we evaluate this proposal. Building on that, ambassadors are uniquely positioned to collect insights that no on-chain data can provide on its own. They are in the room at events, moderating communities in local languages, and walking new users through onboarding. That puts them closer to the user journey than anyone else in the ecosystem. Yet the program currently tasks them with generating awareness — not with understanding what happens after. On-chain data can tell us how many new wallets staked during a given period, but it cannot tell us why, where those users came from, or where others dropped off. Field information and cultural sensitivity can be tremendously informative. Full attribution is always challenging but it starts with explicitly tasking ambassadors with gathering it.

The output would not just be staker counts. It would be qualitative insight into where people drop off, what barriers they face — capital access, exchange availability, technical friction — and what actually converts awareness into staking. That understanding is what would allow the DAO to evaluate cost per staker meaningfully over time, and to design a program that improves with each renewal rather than simply continuing.

These are meant as building blocks, not blockers.

1 Like
16

Thank you @Georgia for putting together this renewal proposal and for the detailed reports. Special thanks to the ambassadors (@krngill in India and @Kath in Venezuela) for their consistent contributions over the past months. Both ambassadors have consistently hit the top performance tier and earned the maximum monthly compensation of $1,000 USDRIF. Their work in content creation, events, moderation, and community engagement has clearly added value. That said, as several other delegates have noted, I believe the program would benefit from some targeted improvements before an on-chain vote. Specifically:

  • A clear link between activities and measurable outcomes towards the North Star (increase in stRIF).

  • A focus on growing content reach over time — ambassadors could experiment with tactics and feedback loops that drive higher engagement.

  • Increased collaboration with delegates, for example by notifying us of upcoming content or events so we can help amplify them.

I have voted Against this proposal in its current form — not because I oppose extending the program or undervaluing the ambassadors’ efforts, but because I’m not comfortable approving the compensation structure and renewal without clear outcome-based incentives, visibility mechanisms, and an increase in content engagement numbers. I look forward to seeing a refined version that addresses these points and would be happy to support it then.

18

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and for recognizing the work the ambassadors have been putting into the program.

We completely agree that the next evolution of the program should strengthen the connection between activities and measurable outcomes tied to the broader north-star goal of increasing stRIF participation and ecosystem engagement.

Regarding social media and content experimentation specifically, the ambassadors are already actively testing different content formats, publishing styles, educational approaches, and engagement tactics across platforms in order to better understand what resonates with each regional audience. Since every region behaves differently culturally and digitally, part of the current phase has also been about testing and learning.

At the same time, we also agree that content reach and engagement should continue improving over time through more structured feedback loops and clearer targets. We are already working internally with the ambassadors on more specific goal-setting and KPI refinement, and I will share additional clarification around this later today as part of the ongoing discussion.

On delegate collaboration - fully agreed as well.

Improving visibility around upcoming events, content campaigns, Spaces, and regional activities is something we can absolutely implement moving forward, so delegates and ecosystem contributors can help amplify ambassador-led initiatives more effectively.

And lastly, thank you as well for clarifying the reasoning behind your vote. We genuinely appreciate that the feedback is focused on strengthening the structure of the program rather than dismissing the value of the ambassadors’ contributions.

These discussions are extremely useful for helping us mature the program, improve accountability mechanisms, and build a stronger framework for future renewals.

1 Like
19

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to analyze the proposal in depth.

You are absolutely right that “staker growth” as a north-star KPI needs clearer definition moving forward. At the moment, when we refer to staker growth, we mainly refer to wallets staking through ambassador-driven onboarding and educational efforts.

To clarify - right now, we do not yet apply additional qualification factors such as:

  • Minimum staking amount
  • Retention period
  • Whether it is a first-time staker or an existing holder increasing their position
  • Time-based staking behavior

At the current stage, we are primarily measuring wallets staking. However, RootstockCollective is still a relatively new initiative, and many of our operational structures, reporting systems, and KPIs are still evolving as we gather more real-world data and feedback.

This is also why the “5–10 stakers per active month” mentioned in the Asia proposal was initially presented as an estimation/assumption rather than a fully data-backed benchmark, since we did not yet have enough historical program data to define more precise expectations confidently.

That said, we fully agree that as the program matures, these KPIs need to become more structured, measurable, and standardized across regions to ensure consistency, transparency, and better DAO evaluation.

Your point regarding the user journey is also very important and something we will definitely take into consideration moving forward. Understanding who we are targeting, where users drop off, and what friction points exist between awareness and staking is critical for building a more effective and scalable ambassador framework.

And to your second point - completely agreed.

Ambassadors are uniquely positioned to capture qualitative insights that pure on-chain data cannot provide. Their proximity to local communities, events, onboarding conversations, and regional cultural dynamics gives valuable context around:

  • Where users come from
  • What motivates staking
  • Where users drop off
  • What onboarding barriers exist
  • What educational gaps remain

This type of feedback is extremely valuable for the broader ecosystem strategy and absolutely something we want to strengthen over time within the program structure.

At the same time, measurable performance indicators still remain important in order to evaluate ambassador impact objectively and fairly. While staker growth is one of the main north-star goals for the broader RootstockCollective initiative, ambassadors are ultimately evaluated across multiple dimensions, community growth, operational support, moderation, educational contributions, ecosystem representation, onboarding support, and regional engagement, similar to how performance is evaluated across different responsibilities in any role.

These discussions are genuinely valuable for helping us improve the structure and maturity of the program over time.

Once again, thank you for the constructive feedback and for contributing meaningfully to the conversation.

2 Likes
Tané Delegate Thread
20

Thanks for raising this, agreed that the new staker metric should be presented more explicitly since it has been the primary KPI for evaluating ambassador impact and regional continuation.

To provide additional clarity ahead of the renewal vote:

:small_orange_diamond: India Ambassador

10 new stakers onboarded during the last 3 months through direct educational onboarding, local community engagement, and staking support activities.

Relevant wallet activity:

  1. 0xeE7703Fb8ba38805F9D04dEC99745F4cB542c53b
  2. 0x83954A6Ab78893E23D35f6C1f2f2a9036d66CB9D
  3. 0x8517c0409090D84e81e7Eb41064246beDb0A0D26
  4. 0xC1932f63360D4747Bb321a90Aa27baBD98BAf420
  5. 0x77203E63441F80C9169311B8900bf30e526042e1
  6. 0xB733461C7F6baCf7df2fC7D6b4c0A32D8D294b78
  7. 0x5542aD9C6dA4c3cE3a42B9a095f50184f5383C24
  8. 0xA04FA2E42422D35dd7d8a560a8a4A7e6FEb5c111
  9. 0xaFee59115F04CFaC6320FeEa4E4cea0E329B2edF
  10. 0x58E193f74Ee3465EDB6d2FbEA383881ce40d8C7E

:small_orange_diamond: Venezuela Ambassador

As previously mentioned, the focus of this role has primarily been moderation, operational support, and community management rather than direct staking acquisition. However, staking-related onboarding support was also provided.

Relevant wallet activity:

  1. 0x3ad676E1C2E10aF3F422fD83F6Ce635DC1395166

:small_orange_diamond: Argentina Ambassador

Over the last 9 months (3 months pilot + 6 months M1), we got 2 stakers onboarded through this ambassador:

  1. 0x6e78e3cdE3d6387F1eCBC7f656BBd9d0717b1ce9
  2. 0x37f3fAA0d358cA3898d4F93E9fBB3665190B103f

The decision not to extend Argentina was based on the gap between expected and actual staker growth over an extended period, especially considering the original benchmark of 5–10 new stakers during active participation windows.

While qualitative contributions and local presence were appreciated, the renewal assessment prioritized measurable ecosystem growth outcomes tied to staking adoption. We also had higher expectations for this specific region given the size and maturity of the web3 ecosystem in Argentina, the fact that Devcon took place in Buenos Aires this year, and that the ambassador was already well-connected within the local ecosystem.

Considering these factors, we expected to see significantly stronger impact, broader outreach efforts, and more measurable onboarding results throughout the duration of the program.

3 Likes
Tané Delegate Thread
21

I also wanted to provide a small clarification following @Tane 's thread and some of the concerns raised there.

Regarding the comment:
“Argentina was discontinued on the same metric (2 stakers in 9 months); the proposal does not explain why an India rate below the program’s own floor warrants different treatment.”

I’d like to clarify that the India ambassador was operating under a 3-month pilot program, while the Argentina ambassador was already in Milestone 1 after a much longer period of involvement and familiarity with the ecosystem.

Within those 3 months, the India ambassador onboarded 10 stakers, compared to 2 stakers over 9 months in Argentina. The comparison was therefore evaluated not only on absolute numbers, but also on onboarding pace, growth trajectory, and measurable impact relative to the stage and duration of each ambassador engagement.

So from our side, this was not a matter of different treatment, but rather an evaluation based on results and overall progression.

Regarding the comment:
“With KPIs ‘still evolving’ and no commitment to track and report those metrics in this renewal period, the program cannot be evaluated against its own north star.”

I also want to clarify that there is already a clear commitment to improving KPI tracking and reporting.

We are already using BrandChamp to better track ambassador performance, contribution analytics, and activity data. Additionally, as mentioned previously in the forum by me:
“We are already working internally with the ambassadors on more specific goal-setting and KPI refinement, and I will share additional clarification around this later today as part of the ongoing discussion.”

Reference:
https://gov.rootstockcollective.xyz/t/2605-rootstockcollective-ambassador-proposal-renewal-proposal-multi-ambassador-extension-m1-m2/812/18?u=georgia

RootstockCollective is still evolving operationally, and naturally some KPI frameworks are evolving alongside it. However, that does not mean tracking, evaluation, or accountability are absent. If anything, the discussions happening now are helping us strengthen those structures moving forward, which we genuinely appreciate.