Thanks for sharing the addresses, @Georgia. We checked their on-chain history and the picture is narrower than 10 stakers.
All 10 wallets received their staking RIF from the same source wallet, each staked once for ~$3 worth, and haven’t staked again. Total stake across all 10: roughly $29.
If one wallet funded all 10, in what sense are they 10 distinct stakers? Could you describe how each wallet was attributed to the India ambassador, and what definition of ‘staker’ the program is using?
This collapses the program’s evidence base for India to effectively one funded participant. Either attribution needs to be strictly enforced and on-chain verifiable going forward, or ‘wallets staking’ needs to be replaced with a metric that can carry the program’s growth thesis.
On BrandChamp: pointing to it as the accountability layer only works if delegates can audit the points it produces. Activity reports cover narrative output, but the points themselves have no delegate-facing view, read-only link, or export.
Could the program publish either a delegate-accessible view per ambassador per period, or the raw point exports alongside each compensation tranche? Otherwise “we use BrandChamp” is tracking that exists, not tracking delegates can verify.
Actually, in India most people are comfortable with Binance because that is a FIU-compliant(regulatory body by Indian Government) platform. Other EXCHANGES where RIF is listed are not available in India, so most of them purchased RIF on Binance.
They transferred it from Binance to the their wallets. In that case, all the RIFs are transferred from the hot wallet operated by Binance itself, which is a centralized exchange.
You can clearly see that source wallet is hot wallet of exchange.
The minimum send of RIF is roughly around 40 or 50 RIFs, so everyone just did the minimum amount to try with.
User experience for Staking involves Buy RIF on exchange, Buy rBTC using bridge and then final step. So turnout it quite low on that side.
And also to create a Binance account, they need to do the KYC process, and then they need to purchase USDT using p2p marketplace in Binance. if we can make the user journey a little simpler than it would be great while onboarding new people.
Just wanted to add our rationale for supporting this proposal, since it may be missed from our delegate thread.
I reiterate that with my recent experience engaging with more intent with local web3 community in events and chat groups to talk about Rootstock, I’m noticing we have a long ways to go in terms of awareness, brand recognition, and marketshare.
I think growth initiatives cannot be measured only through short term metrics, instead we might need to value more effort and initiatives as well.
We are not Solana. Any growth initiative from a top tier blockchain, capitalizes in that estalished awareness and can/should be measured in outcome.
Unfortunately my experience has been that a blockchain with low brand awareness first needs to build that up, before growth initiatives are trully fruitful short-term. There’s a chasm to be overcome. How do we build towards bridging that chasm?
I highly incentivize other delegates to experiment with this. Go out there, engage with your local web3 community, try to bring builders, projects, users, BTC holders and RIF staking. take note of the challenges, get a feel for what is the bottleneck. Then let’s discuss and ideate.
We do agree with you here, and we are also voting FOR as well since we believe ambassadors should not be judged by just one metric alone. Their role is to extend awareness and presence, which involves many substantial tasks beyond that.
Therefore, since they have already built momentum, continuing and adjusting along the way would be more beneficial than pausing the program. Sharing our rationale here to add more perspective.
While we recognize some concerns raised by some delegates regarding very granular KPIs, the reality is that @Georgia has repeatedly stated, with a sufficient level of detail, that the team is already working on the next iteration of the program for the future. For that reason, we consider this matter reasonably addressed for the time being, and we will look forward to evaluating the concrete improvements in the next renewal cycle.
Likewise, although we share certain concerns regarding the embassadors performance, it is also important to acknowledge that delegates are mostly assessing “cold” metrics and spreadsheet figures, whereas @Georgia is the one working day-to-day with the ambassadors, coordinating their efforts and closely following their contributions. As such, we believe she is unquestionably in a much better position to evaluate their capabilities, value, and long-term potential. We trust her judgment in this regard and do not want to take an obstructive stance that could ultimately leave Rootstock without ambassadors, which we believe would create a far greater downside than the legitimate concerns raised by some delegates.
Last but certainly not least, we want to emphasize that this is an especially important year for India due to the upcoming Devcon in Mumbai, making it strategically critical for Rootstock to maintain an ambassador presence in the country. In that sense, we strongly support renewing this role. Dear @krngill, this has to be your year, you are in the right place at the right time!
And @kath, while you may now be without a fellow ambassador in Argentina, please know that you can count on the SEEDGov team in Buenos Aires to support and collaborate on any initiative where we can be helpful within the country.
Thanks for your reply! Two open points on the wallet question.
First, we couldn’t verify the Binance attribution specifically. The address has no public label on Rootstock Blockscout, and its visible flow pattern doesn’t look like a broad retail withdrawal wallet. Outflows are typically in the 5-to-6-figure RIF range, distributed across very few unique destinations per page. If you have direct evidence the wallet is Binance, we’d like to look at it.
Second, your explanation covers the technical on-ramp flow but not the attribution methodology. The on-chain pattern shows 7 wallets funded from the same source within a 6-minute window on April 13 and all staking within the next hour and a half, which looks like a coordinated event. If that was your meetup, can you confirm? And more broadly, how do these 10 wallets get attributed to your ambassador work specifically, rather than to other India users on the same on-ramp? Is there a sign-up form, referral link, attendee list cross-referenced to wallet addresses, or some other mechanism?
We are fine with continuing the ambassador program. Our AGAINST vote on this proposal is not an objection to the ambassadors’ work continuing; it reflects that current reporting does not measure against the staker-growth north star the program has set for itself.
Our ask is for structured KPI reporting at the level of the V3.2 grant guidelines, or a dedicated ambassador-program guideline that performs the same function. We would like to see this set up during this cycle, not deferred to the next renewal. Without it, ambassador impact remains un-auditable against the program’s stated north star.
The framework can still be set up during this engagement, which would close the gap regardless of whether this proposal passes.
Thank you a lot to all delegates for the comments and for challenging the proposal; this is exactly how we improve the Ambassadors Program and make it stronger.
It took me a bit more time than I initially expected, but here is a spreadsheet showing key metrics per ambassador, including: New Stakers, Online & onsite events, X and LinkedIn performance, Conversion and activity notes.
At the same time, @Tane’s feedback regarding BrandChamp is valid, and I can include BrandChamp performance metrics as part of the reporting in the next renewal, if approved.
Hello @Georgia, I wanted to clarify the scope of the spreadsheet that you shared: is this spreadsheet what you plan to use on a go-forward basis? And is the first month May 2026? It appears so because the actual metrics are not populated yet.
Hi @Axia , yes, this spreadsheet is intended to be the recurring tracking template for Milestone 1 for India and Milestone 2 for Venezuela going forward. The figures currently included are the projected goals/KPIs for each month across the next 6 months of the milestone period.
We’ll be updating the sheet monthly with the actual metrics and notes as each month is completed, which is why the “actuals” fields are still empty at this stage.
