We share the objective expressed in this thread that the DAO and its delegates additional contributions idea to the long-term success of Rootstock beyond the current role of grant evaluators. We believe there is significant value in this.
Based on our experience participating in other DAOs, we suggest approaching this from a specific angle.
A lesson from previous DAO experiences
We have observed a dynamic in practice, for example in the case of the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) initiative for Arbitrum, where there has been a notable lack of coordination between the DAO and Offchain Labs, which has led to the failure of this initiative. This disconnect led DAO members to propose strategic objectives that weren’t necessarily aligned with the roadmap of the Labs and Arbitrum as a chain.
We must avoid this situation. Otherwise, the DAO risks spending time and effort designing initiatives or strategic ideas to be implemented that end up overlapping with existing efforts, or being purely symbolic, simply because they’re not aligned with the vision or trajectory of the Lab, who have been leading platform development and vision since day one. This is not necessarily a problem of intent, but rather of information asymmetry. Lab naturally have deeper visibility into product roadmap, technical constraints, strategic priorities, and resource allocation.
Because of this, we believe the most effective approach is a top-down coordinated model, where the DAO complements the work of the Lab. This initial coordination is essential. The DAO should act as a complementary force, filling gaps and amplifying the Lab’s efforts. To do so, it must first clearly understand the direction, visión and mid/long term priorities being driven by the Lab, and then the DAO can design initiatives that create real, high-impact value and align with the platform.
In this model, the DAO acts as a complementary execution layer, helping accelerate initiatives that benefit the ecosystem without duplicating work or diverging from strategic priorities and alignment.
Scroll is a good example of this: the governance team ran a Co-Creation Sprint to this very end.
Lido and their GOOSE is another example, where the Lido Foundation, together with the Foundation and other stakeholders, has set the DAO’s strategic goals for 2026. It’s a more centralized solution, but one that ultimately pursues the same goal: to define strategic priorities and establish coordinated actions in response to the needs that reality presents on the blockchain.
A practical example: the Velora Contributors Program
An interesting approach was tested in VeloraDAO, where we served as the Governance Task Force, through the Velora Contributors Program (VCP) mentioned by @ignas in this post.
The idea was to start with an experimental phase, where:
- Scopes of work were defined in coordination with the Lab,
- Contributors worked on clearly identified initiatives,
- Extraordinary contributions that make a real impact was rewarded,
- The program iterated over time to refine those scopes.
Unfortunately the program was interrupted due to broader economic constraints, but the methodological approach, initial coordination with the core team, iterative scopes, and structured experimentation, proved to be a productive framework.
Suggestion for Rootstock Collective
For Rootstock, we would suggest exploring a similar model:
- First establish structured dialogue with the Lab and core team.
- Identify priority areas where DAO contributors could support the Lab’s efforts and areas that the Lab cannot prioritize internally but where the DAO could lead.
- Define initial experimental scopes for delegate or contributor involvement.
- Iterate based on results and lessons learned.
We believe that isolated initiatives driven solely by the DAO carry a higher risk of failure, while coordinated initiatives significantly increase the probability of alignment and meaningful impact.
This initial coordination with the Lab can take place, for example, through the forum or calls with the delegates as @eren_daoplomats proposed.