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.”
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.