SEEDGov Delegate Thread

[SEEDGov]

Delegate Platform

Name: @SEEDGov

Wallet Address: RNS: seedgov.rsk - 0x123De2b88b2A23549f1E8cA7a7B4CC8698561297

Contact Information:

• Twitter

• Website

• SEEDGov wiki

---

We are excited about the opportunity to participate in the governance of Rootstock through RootstockCollective, contributing to the growth and long-term sustainability of the Bitcoin DeFi Layer.

At SEEDGov, we bring together a dedicated team of contributors passionate about decentralized governance and committed to actively participating in governance processes that strengthen the ecosystem and support builders developing on Rootstock.

The main objective of this delegation is to maintain active and meaningful participation within RootstockCollective governance, contributing to the expansion of the Rootstock ecosystem by supporting initiatives that strengthen infrastructure, empower builders, and increase the adoption of Bitcoin-based smart contract applications.

Our delegation will include the entire SEEDGov team at disposal as well as other consultants necessary for the comprehensive elaboration, assessment and analysis of proposals.

---

What is SEEDGov?

SEEDGov is a dynamic and evolving vertical within the SEED Org ecosystem dedicated to shaping the future of decentralized governance in the Web3 space.

Our work focuses on active participation in governance processes, community coordination, and governance frameworks design that respond to the evolving needs of decentralized ecosystems.

SEEDGov is one of the first LatAm-based delegate platforms, actively participating in governance across multiple protocols and ecosystems. Rooted in community values, we have evolved from educational initiatives into a participatory platform focused on governance operations, coordination, and decision-making.

Our scope of work across various projects includes:

• Designing, implementing, and operating governance frameworks and infrastructure

• Managing grant and allocation programs

• Supporting ecosystem growth initiatives

• Creation, supervision, and management of incentive programs

• Onboarding builders and contributors to decentralized ecosystems

Operating within established governance frameworks, our platform goes beyond the traditional role of delegates by actively contributing to ecosystem development and sustainability. We empower decentralized organizations providing the tools and expertise they need to maximize impact.

---

How We Work

As a professional governance operators, SEEDGov collaborates with communities and partners to ensure credible representation of all interested in Web3’s future. Since its inception, SEEDGov has advocated for critical thinking through education. We do not endorse scams or collaborate with blockchains, projects, or protocols that are not aligned with our core values.

The members selected to be part of our team will collaborate both directly and indirectly with other SEEDGov members. Any decisions made by this delegation regarding governance will be thoroughly discussed and communicated to all stakeholders through our discussion channels and seamlessly executed through specialized working units.

When a project aligns with our principles, we proactively take steps to ensure its success, whether through offering informed opinions or taking concrete action. We believe in more than just participating; we believe in actively shaping and improving projects within our sphere and we are committed to expressing our principles and rationale in a clear, transparent, and detailed manner in this forum.

---

Our Governance Principles

Our delegation will seek to represent the following principles within RootstockCollective governance:

Decentralization

Rootstock represents one of the most relevant attempts to extend Bitcoin’s capabilities while preserving its core principles. We support initiatives that strengthen decentralization, improve governance participation, and ensure that ecosystem growth remains community-driven.

Ecosystem Growth & Builder Support

As a DeFi layer for Bitcoin, Rootstock’s long-term success depends on the strength of its ecosystem. We will actively support initiatives that attract builders, improve developer tooling, and expand the applications being built on Rootstock.

Sustainable Incentives

Incentive programs should promote long-term ecosystem growth rather than short-term activity. We will support well-designed initiatives that align incentives between contributors, developers, and the broader community.

Security and Responsibility

We will prioritize proposals that protect the security and resilience of the Rootstock ecosystem, ensuring that governance decisions never compromise the integrity of the network or its users.

• Ethos and Support

  We will actively contribute to the governance of Roostock and its ecosystem worldwide, looking forward to working with the Lab, other interested delegates and snatckholders to promote the Roostock mission and encourage others to actively participate in DAO governance.

---

Why Rootstock?

Rootstock represents a unique approach within the Bitcoin ecosystem by enabling smart contracts while leveraging Bitcoin’s security model.

Some of the aspects that make Rootstock particularly compelling include:

Bitcoin-Secured Smart Contracts

Rootstock extends the capabilities of Bitcoin by enabling programmable applications while maintaining strong alignment with Bitcoin’s security and ethos.

Expanding the Bitcoin Economy

The growth of decentralized applications on Rootstock contributes to expanding the use cases of Bitcoin beyond simple value transfer, opening opportunities for financial infrastructure, decentralized coordination, and new economic models.

Ecosystem Coordination Through RootstockCollective

RootstockCollective introduces a novel approach to ecosystem coordination by aligning incentives between builders, backers, and contributors, helping accelerate development and adoption across the network.

---

Our Perspective

We see Rootstock not only as a blockchain but as an important infrastructure layer within the broader Bitcoin ecosystem.

Participating in RootstockCollective governance will allow us to contribute to:

• Strengthening governance processes and participation

• Supporting ecosystem and builder growth

• Evaluating and improving incentive mechanisms

• Encouraging responsible experimentation within the Bitcoin smart contract ecosystem

We believe that thoughtful governance and strong community coordination will be essential for Rootstock’s long-term development.

---

COI Disclosure

SEEDGov is a broad organization actively participating in governance across multiple ecosystems including Optimism, Arbitrum, Scroll, Uniswap, Cryptex Finance, among others.

Our goal in participating in RootstockCollective governance is to contribute meaningfully to the ecosystem. In the event of any potential conflict of interest, we will always disclose it transparently to the community.

[Raphael_Anode]

Hi SEEDgov! So good to have you here. We know from our previous interactions at Arbitrum, OP, and many others that you’re an awesome team to have on board. I’ll reach out via Telegram to see who on your end we should add to the Telegram chat.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2603 Grant Proposal] Rootstock India | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We voted against the proposal for two main reasons:

• First, as we do not consider it good governance practice to promote debate and exchange of views by publishing a proposal on a Friday and bringing it to a vote just 24 hours later, on a Saturday. There is no justification for proceeding with such urgency.

• And second, regarding the substance of the proposal, because we considere that producing educational content about Rootstock requires prior coordination with the Lab and the DAO to ensure that the quality meets expected standards. It is also necessary to establish a clear framework for the use of Rootstock’s intellectual property, as well as to define in what capacity the presenters would be acting. This is particularly important given that these proposed events would be organized by a chain-agnostic community, and they will not include the presence of the Lab team or official Rootstock ambassadors, which requires a higher level of rigor in both content and communication.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: Introduce a 90% Maximum Allocation to Backers to Ensure Builders Retain Meaningful Rewards | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal; our rationale can be read in the corresponding dabate post:

@SEEDGov

We support this proposal. While at first glance it may appear to limit builder freedom, particularly if a builder wishes to allocate more than 90% of their rewards to backers, a deeper analysis from an incentive alignment perspective suggests otherwise.

Allowing, as is currently the case, up to 100% of rewards to be allocated to backers may creates misaligned incentives, as it drives a competitive dynamic in which builders may be pushed to offer increasingly higher percentages to attract backing. This can lead them to give up the entirety of the rewards they help generate, even against their actual preferences, simply to remain competitive and secure support. This incentives misalignment could, in practical term, limit their freedom.

In this context, setting a 90% cap on reward allocation to backers appears to be a reasonable and well-balanced solution. It helps structure competition for backing by preventing a race to 100%, while ensuring that builders retain at least 10% of the value they generate.

In this way, incentives are not removed or undermined, but rather improved and structured: competition will continue to exist as it does today, but within a more balanced framework that protects builders while still allowing for a strong rewards allocation to backers.

This a first step toward moving away from the current 100%, it makes sense to start with 90%, see how the community responds, and adjust it again in the future if necessary.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: Introduce the BTC Vault (Sandbox Mode) on the RootstockCollective dApp | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale As we have already stated in the proposal thread, we are voting in favor of this initiative, as it seeks to establish a controlled environment to experiment with yield generation strategies on rBTC at virtually no cost to the DAO. We believe that moving in this direction is essential for driving the Rootstock ecosystem forward by enabling new DeFi integrations for BTC yield, a use case with strong potential and demand.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2603 Grant] Updated: Bitcoin India Tour Phase-3 X Rootstock India | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We are reproducing the rationale we outlined in the proposal thread:

@SEEDGov

We voted against this proposal. We want to be very clear that we have nothing against the author or the proposal itself, which we in fact consider solid. However, this type of initiative is very difficult to assess in terms of KPIs and return on allocated capital—specifically, whether the requested grant would generate a tangible return for Rootstock in the form of new active users or new developers building within the ecosystem. In this case, we find it particularly challenging to evaluate or project that impact.

At the moment, delegates, the Collective, and the Lab are beginning a dialogue that we believe will be highly productive in establishing priorities and aligning around the network’s strategic objectives, as well as how the Collective can best contribute to them. Within that process, it will also become clearer whether initiatives of this kind are aligned with those strategic goals and how their KPIs and ROI should be measured to ensure a more efficient allocation of funds.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [Grant 2604] Recognized Delegate Compensation - March 2026 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale We voted in favor of distributing the compensation to the delegates as proposed, since the calculations made by @Raphael_Anode (see the public delegates aactvity tracking spreadsheet) reflect the parameters of the recognized delegates compensation program.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration - Milestone 3 | RootstockCollective - VALID PROPOSAL

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal for the reasons stated in the corresponding thread, which we reproduce below:

@SEEDGov

We voted in favor of this proposal to fund Milestone 3, as the proposer has fully complied with the deliverables committed to in Milestone 2 and has adequately addressed the comments made in this thread. We are very pleased to see that, although the first external audit identified only one minor issue and potential enhancement, you have resolved everything, and this has been verified in the re-audit. We eagerly await the Mainnet launch as a key component of Milestone 3!

---

---

---

Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al | RootstockCollective - DUPLICATED PROPOSAL

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale We voted against it because it is a duplicate proposal resulting from an unintentional error, according to the clarifications provided by the proposer.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone2 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal, as we consider that the proposer has met the deliverables for Milestone 1, and we view with satisfaction the adjustments and clarifications made regarding the router’s standalone privileges, the priority of split routing, and formal audit planning.

We look forward to the details of the security audit plan committed to in Milestone 2 (to be delivered in Milestone 3), as this is a sensitive issue.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [1304 Grant Proposal] TYKORA Prize Vaults for DoC & USDRIF (Tropykus Yield) | JXLabs - M1 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal, in accordance with the statement we made in the respective thread:

@SEEDGov

Hi @jxlabs, we must admit that we still have some reservations about this proposal, particularly regarding liquidity and TVL creation in a bearish market environment.

However, we voted in favor given its potential to attract new users and create new use cases for DoC and USDRIF, which is exactly what Rootstock needs.

We also appreciate that the team has been highly responsive to feedback and requests for clarification, providing solid and thoughtful answers throughout the process.

Looking ahead, if the proposal is approved, we see two key aspects that will be critical to monitor: first, the activation and engagement plan, which we believe will be central to the project’s success; and second, the audit, which should be conducted by a reputable firm to ensure the security of both users and the system.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2603 Grant] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1 | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We voted against this proposal, in accordance with the statement we made in the respective thread:

@SEEDGov

We have carefully reviewed the proposal, along with the feedback and the responses provided, and have decided to vote against it.

The proposed development introduces a potential systemic point of failure. If the kit were to contain a vulnerability, it could propagate across all projects that rely on it. Unlike other cases where a vulnerability impacts only a single project, in this scenario the risk could scale across multiple projects simultaneously, creating a broader ecosystem-wide concern.

We believe this represents a significant risk, and that a solution of this nature should be approached more holistically, developed by a team with stronger expertise in similar tools, and involve a higher level of coordination, alignment and oversight from the Rootstock team.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [Revised Scope] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1 | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: Although the revised proposal addresses the main concern raised about the previous one regarding the risk of systemic propagation of a vulnerability, we voted against this new proposal.

First, as we flagged, the proposer submitted the revised proposal for a vote at the very moment it was presented in the forum and while the original proposal was still in the voting period. The minimum best practices of governance and respect that should prevails in order to allow the Collective to analyze the proposal, provide feedback, and even suggest improvements have not been followed.

Secondly, regarding the substance of the proposal, as it is currently presented we do not see sufficient value to justify allocating $10,000. There is no clear evidence that developers building on Rootstock are facing meaningful friction or obstacles that would require such a solution, nor that there is concrete demand for a tool of this nature to the extent that it would be considered both valuable and necessary.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: Blockscout Global Wallet - Milestone 2 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal as we believe the proposer has adequately delivered on the main commitments outlined in Milestone 2. We appreciate the transparency regarding the Gas Sponsorship and the reduction of the budget from $8,000 to $3,500, understanding that the program was discontinued due to reasons beyond the proposer’s control.

We particularly highlight the overperformance (more than 10%) on retention KPIs during the first three months, which is very encouraging. We also note the partial progress already made on some Milestone 3 commitments, such as the testnet integration with Tropikus and the mainnet integration with Swapscout.

We understand the concerns regarding the full delivery of Milestone 2 commitments, particularly the lack of integrations with other platforms. However, given the overperformance on other KPIs, we believe it is reasonable to support the continuation of the grant in order to avoid wasting the funds already invested by halting the project at this stage. While there have been some delays and partial shortcomings, the project has also delivered positive results and reduced its budget, which justifies allowing it to continue.

We look forward, in particular, to the mainnet integration with Tropikus, which will likely provide a meaningful boost to the project. We also expect from @AndrewG progress on the remaining integrations, including Zerodev, and would appreciate updates on the current status and how these efforts are progressing.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [Grant 0705] Recognized Delegate Compensation - April 2026 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We support this proposal, which compensates the qualified delegates for the time and effort dedicated during April. It is a true honor for us to have been recognized as this month’s top 3 delegates, and we are committed to continuing to contribute to Rootstock’s growth from our position.

[SEEDGov]

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

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal because, while some concerns regarding KPIs and results remain valid, we believe @Georgia is in the best position to assess the ambassadors’ contributions and long-term potential through her day-to-day coordination with them. At the same time, we consider it more beneficial for Rootstock to maintain its ambassador presence, especially in strategically important regions such as India ahead of Devcon, rather than risk weakening those efforts over concerns that can continue to be refined in future iterations of the program.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: RBTC Onboarding EventKit | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We do see value in the idea itself, but we believe insufficient evidence has been provided to validate actual developer demand for this tool. The Grant Guidelines v3.2 already require us to apply a very high standard when evaluating grant requests, and based on the feedback received from delegates — including ourselves — V3.3 will make demand validation a mandatory hard gate for infrastructure-related grant proposals such as this one.

In our view, the evidence presented so far is not strong enough to conclusively demonstrate sufficient market demand to justify allocating $ 9,300 of funding to this project, particularly given that the expected ROI has not been adequately validated. That said, we remain open to reconsidering our vote if meaningful evidence of demand and intended usage is provided, as we genuinely believe the proposal has merit, but it must be accompanied by stronger validation that developers are actively seeking and willing to use such a solution.

We also note that the applicant has not complied with the mandatory initial AMA with delegates prior to putting the proposal to a vote, as required by the Step 3 of the V3.2 of the General Guidelines for Grant Applicants.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We quote the reasoning we have stated in the proposal thread:

@SEEDGov

we are voting against on this proposal for the reasons previously highlighted by other delegates. Please apologize if this sounds overly bureaucratic and technical, but for reasons of traceability and accuracy that will allow for future verification, we believe this proposal should be deleted and a new, corrected proposal should be submitted, with the label clearly indicating that the funds proposed for release correspond to those of Milestone: 4.

We are ready to vote in favor in the corrected voting, as we understand that you have fully delivered on the committed output.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [2508 Grant] M4 Infrastructure Ventures Path to Ecosystem Growth | RootstockCollective

Vote: AGAINST

Rationale: We voted against this proposal. Rather than seeing an increase in onboarded projects, the program has effectively been reduced to only two active projects, both of which currently show limited traction. As a result, we are moving further away from the stated objective of generating $500k in TVL for Rootstock.

Given these circumstances, we do not believe it is prudent to continue allocating increasingly larger amounts of funding, in this case, an additional $15,000, when there is a significant risk that the expected ROI will not even be sufficient to recover the funds already invested to date.

While we appreciate the efforts made by the contributors involved, we believe that additional funding should be contingent upon stronger evidence of onboarding, adoption, traction, and a clearer path toward generating measurable value for the Rootstock ecosystem.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: [Grant 0806] Recognized Delegate Compensation - May 2026 | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal to distribute delegate compensation in recognition of the contributions made during May.

That said, we do not overlook the concerns we previously raised in the discussion thread surrounding this new compensation framework. As we noted, the program simultaneously reduced the overall budget by half while at the same time expanding the number of incentivized delegates, resulting in a significant dilution of compensation levels, and it also creates a flat compensation structure to the point where the difference in rewards between delegates who contribute at the highest level and those who merely meet the minimum requirements becomes too small. This comes at a time when the new Grant Guidelines require greater dedication and more detailed participation from delegates, including the addition of monthly evaluations of approved projects and attendance at community calls for new grant presentations. Taken together, we believe these changes create a clear misalignment of incentives and may undermine the level of time, effort, and quality of contributions that Rootstock require.

That being said, we committed to evaluating the impact of this new framework after one or two months of implementation and then bring the discussion back to the table.

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and alpha launch | RootstockCollective

Vote: FOR

Rationale: Now that the issue of the correct labeling of Milestone 4 has been resolved, we vote in favor of this proposal, since, as we have previously stated, we believe that the committed deliverables have been fully completed, and therefore the funds for Milestone 4 should be released.