The onchain treasury was designed to provide sustainable public goods funding. It has supported many important and strategic contributions to the Livepeer Ecosystem. The AI SPE, Streamplace, Agent SPE and Cloud have all received funds and made important contributions. And through our onchain governance, the community have shown time and again their thoughtfulness and care for getting decisions right. Your desire to align decisions with long-term health has made us a shining example of simple but effective governance and how people can working together onchain.
The treasury is key to supporting strategic investments to improve UX for stakeholders, effectively manage protocol security, and fund other capital and resource needs for this exciting phase of the project.
As of now, the onchain treasury is currently not accumulating LPT. It was designed not to accept unlimited funding, hit the initial value set as the ceiling, and reset treasury contributions to 0% on or around 31st of March this year. There are a backlog of upcoming projects on highly strategic initiatives that will need treasury support, and we will all feel better about how to allocate funds if we have certainty that new funds are coming into the treasury.
I intend to post a LIP to turn on the treasury rewards again at their initial values:
treasuryRewardCutRate: 10%
treasuryBalanceCeiling: 750000 LPT
The rate of 750000 LPT is currently set as the ceiling so would not be updated in the formal proposal
For what itās worth, my personal bias is to increase one of these values, but Iām happy to punt that discussion to another day. Having seen the exciting things in the background that will require treasury support in coming weeks, the most pressing item for us as a community is to start getting the treasury repopulated.
Iāll be on the watercooler next week to discuss and am happy to set up an office hours to discuss direct if there is support for that. I look forward to proposing this for a community vote . If you have any input on the contribution percentage that goes into my proposal, please also share your input here.
I will vote against this until some form of KPI-based or retroactive grants policy is implemented. Right now, most treasury proposals have been scams or pure waste. Seeing LPT just sitting idle in the contract is also a problem that needs to be addressed. The 400k limit is fine ā we havenāt even used the 750k over the past two years. Why would we drain that much LPT again just to have it sit idle?
Iād prefer holding two separate votes for the two parameters.
I also agree that the two parameters are separate and can be discussed/proposed/voted on separately. The treasuryBalanceCeiling is already at 750000 which was the initial value, and even if the treasuryRewardCutRate is set to something other than 0%, it wonāt fill the treasury immediately. So this discussion and proposal doesnāt have to even include discussion on the Ceiling and that can be punted to another time. I suggest we just discuss the rate and the proposal ONLY include the value for that parameter.
2. Whether the initial versions of the proposals pass or not, the upcoming proposals around DEX liquidity, protocol security including funding the bounty program, and some of the core development SPEs funding their ongoing contributions to the network development meet needs of things that will have to be funded at significant levels. So I do expect that the current treasury will be depleted quickly. And hence Iām definitely supportive of continuing to repopulate the treasury over time, especially while the inflation rate is higher. (Note that inflation rate has begun coming down lately. Itās better to populate the treasury when there are extra inflationary rewards to draw from.)
I strongly support the initiative to immediately restart Treasury accumulation.
1. Growth Funding is Paramount for Survival: This is not optionalāthis is existential. The Livepeer Protocol will fail or worse, not exist, if we donāt dramatically increase spending on quality builders, strategic projects, and, critically, network infrastructure. We must spend far more than we have to date to achieve a compelling value proposition and compete effectively. This includes dedicating Treasury funds to incentivize the provisioning of datacenter-grade GPU supply (like NVIDIA H100s, etc.) to ensure the network has the high-end capacity necessary for future demand and advanced use cases.
2. The Voter is Responsible: I acknowledge and agree that there have been wasteful projects. However, the ultimate responsibility for funding āscams or pure wasteā falls squarely on the Orchestrators/Delegators who voted for them. We must demand a much higher level of scrutiny and rigorous due diligence from the voters. I want to see voters use their voice to formally express concerns about a proposalās merits OR the trust/accountability of the proposing team to better sway the community vote.
3. Accountable Vetting Process: To address this accountability gap, we need a formalized Community Vetting Phase for all Treasury proposals. This idea was previously discussedāfor instance, groups like GovWorks were intended to help voters make informed decisions but ultimately did not provide actionable information or succeed. Instead of immediately assigning the role, I propose the Livepeer Foundation reviews this idea and recommends a formal mechanism to the community. Whether facilitated by the Livepeer Foundation or another dedicated group, this process must create a mandatory period where proposing teams publicly address key questions (milestones, team history, feasibility) and community concerns before the on-chain vote begins. This is essential for ensuring voters have the high-quality, vetted information required for rigorous due diligence.
I agree with others that we should separate the discussion and vote for the treasuryRewardCutRate and the treasuryBalanceCeiling, but the priority is to enable accumulation now.
Letās vote to turn the accumulation rate back on as soon as the LIP is ready and ensure we have the capital to execute on this next critical phase of growth.
I also agree of filling the treasury right now while the inflation rate is still high. Lpt fuel the project to keep going, it funds the initiatives. If there are grants that is not so 100% success before, it does not mean all of the initiatives.
I agree that the treasury should be restarted and resume accumulation. I also strongly support the comments regarding the need for greater accountability, transparency, and potentially more structured controls over how funds are released to applicants. This oversight could be handled by an independent entity composed of a mix of stakeholders, such as representatives from the foundation, orchestrators, delegators, and other relevant participants.
Previously, we discussed mechanisms such as Titanās proposal for the slow release of funds and the use of guardians, which could be revisited as part of this process.
Additionally, I would like to propose that treasury accumulation should never be fully turned off. Instead, a tapering model could be implementedāgradually reducing the allocation from 10% down to approximately 0.5% as we approach the cap. With this approach probably cap could set lower as well.
Iām supportive of restarting treasury accumulation ā we need long-term funding for protocol growth. But before we scale the treasury again, I think we should first improve the grant-governance mechanism so funds are deployed more transparently and efficiently.
My suggestion:
1) Monthly Public Progress Reports
Every funded project should provide short monthly updates:
what was delivered
whatās next
any changes to scope or budget
This keeps the community informed in real time instead of only at the start or end.
2) Stage-Based Payouts (Instead of 100% Upfront)
I propose splitting grant payouts into:
20% upfront
30% at mid-project milestone
50% at final delivery
This reduces risk and ensures accountability throughout the project lifecycle.
3) Handle LPT Price Volatility
Since LPT price can change during the project, the amount of LPT issued at each stage should reflect the current market price, not the price at approval.
This keeps the real value of the grant stable and fair for both the grantee and the protocol.
In short:
Yes to refilling the treasury ā but letās implement a simple, decentralized accountability framework first. This will increase transparency, reduce waste, and build more trust around how treasury funds are allocated.
Daydream is not even close to a scam. Itās just still in itās earliest stages. Itās like saying the first computer ever built was a scam because it costed millions to make but I couldnāt play League of Legends on it. It takes time for tech to mature.
IMO funds should be released based on roadmap objectives completed. Often times proposals last for 6 months, which is great for protoyping. Yet, real value-adding products take years to fully develop. The treasury needs to be funding ready-for-market products and services. Otherwise weāre just paying for the development of prototypes.
Proposals for consumer facing products/services should be one-and-done. Obviously, there are projects that arenāt consumer facing that are critical for Livepeerās success, but if you canāt find customers to cover the costs of your project, youāll always be going back to the treasury for more funding. A lot of times, if people donāt get the funding theyāre asking for, the give up on the project. Leading to wasted treasury spends.
Ultimately, the treasury needs way more oversight before funds are released. Otherwise sell pressure will always be high. We need products that use Livepeerās infrustructure without needing treasury funding. We also need products that demand the Livepeer token as payment or burn Livepeer when transactions occur.
I joined the Livepeer Discord in April, and I think total supply was 44 million. That means 3 million tokens have been minted since I joined. If people arenāt lining up to buy the token that inflation will eat the price eventually. The same thing is happening to Polkadot. Itās bear price last year was about $3.65. As of right now it sits at $2.07.
When people get massive funding from the treasury, it allows them to hold the stake, and sell the rewards. Even if the price of the token is low. People gotta eat, people gotta pay rent. So even if the token is at an annual low, itās dependent developers will still sell their tokens.
Iām glad the foundation takes this seriously, and opens dialogue with the community. I am not rocket scientist or highly educated economist, but this is my opinion.
if then, why daydream havenāt got any fund from any vc? They just keep getting free money occurring dump LPT. Without treasuryās free money, what can they do?
They are making great progress. In 2-3 years film studios will use Scope over Premier Pro and After Effects. Game developers will use Daydream overlays instead of materials for their 3D assets. I say this confidently as a 3D artist and game dev. Daydream is still very young, but it has the ability to mature into something revolutionary. I personally donāt mind voting in favor of it
I support re-activating the treasury; I believe a funded on-chain treasury remains a vital tool for Livepeer: it enables strategic investments in protocol security, ecosystem growth, tooling, and public-goods that individual stakeholders alone canāt realize.
That said ā to avoid the issues some have rightly flagged (wasted allocations, ineffective or even āscamā proposals, draining of treasury liquidity, downward pressure on the token price) ā I think any re-enabled allocations should come with significantly stronger guardrails:
KPI- or milestone-based funding: instead of blanket grants, disburse funds only when concrete development milestones or deliverables are met. This helps ensure accountability and makes sure treasury funds produce real value.
Transparent proposals & due diligence: before approving SPEs or grants, require clear plans, budgets, and public reports ā and perhaps even periodic audits.
Gradual/phased allocation rather than large lumps: especially when the treasury balance builds up again, funds should be released over time based on results rather than all at once, to limit waste or poor incentives.
I share the concern itās āworrisome to see projects for which we voted drag the treasury down and pull LPT price down as a result.ā
If we combine treasury re-activation with strong governance discipline and results-oriented allocation, I believe the treasury could again prove itself a powerful enabler for Livepeerās ecosystem.
Iām ready to vote for re-activation, provided the proposal includes these safeguards.
There is a great common thread of suggestions across many of these posts that support repopulating the treasury, but on the condition that there are stronger review, vetting, funds release, and guardrail processes in place for what gets funded.
Iād just like to highlight that these are separate concepts. An LIP proposal to turn the treasuryRewardCutRate from 0% to 10% is a concrete parameter change proposal. The social norms suggested around WHAT is eligible to receive funding is a subjective judgement that can certainly interpret social guideline suggestions such as providing transparent budgeting, monthly reporting commitments, released funds governance, etc. While these social conventions are perfectly valid, and could definitely be addressed in a Meta LIP, (see example of [one related to the treasury]( LIPs/LIPs/LIP-90.md at master Ā· livepeer/LIPs Ā· GitHub )), Iād suggest tackling those as a separate discussion and issue independent of the parameter change vote.
All voters can still demand that accountability before voting yes on treasury proposals, and bring them up when evaluating pre-proposals regardless of whether theyāve been codified in an LIP or not. But it would be pretty difficult to get universal agreement on a concrete set of norms and processes that apply to all proposals PRIOR to moving forward with more straightforward things like param change proposals.
Thanks all for the comments and feedback. Some additional context that may be helpful for those not able to make the Watercooler chat:
The discussion in the Watercooler mostly reflected what has been shared above - there is support for restarting treasury accumulation but a desire for more established norms for prioritising work, vetting candidates/proposals and then ensuring accountability through milestone based payments
@Mehrdad has been working on this already and shared some of the challenges - such as being in regular contact with teams funded by proposals, but the difficulty in driving accountability and responsiveness when funds have already been released- as well as outlining examples of where this type of milestone based payout and accountability already exists, namely in the Transformation SPE which releases funds based on milestone completion to teams who won RFPS (Docs updates, Explorer Maintenance, Devconnect activation)
This reflects a more optimal model, where SPEs are not the end recipient of funding but rather act as a vehicle to enable work to be completed and accountable. This is more in line with how SPEs were originally designed
In short, I think there is a path for us to meet this desire for more effective vetting and accountability by doubling down on the fundamentals of how the SPEs were designed to work. I will run some additional workshops on this in the coming weeks so we can get expectations and procedures documented and ready for future proposals.
As Doug said, this important discussion about tightening up our norms and driving accountability, and the LIP for restarting treasury, can be separated. I will make a proposal to restart treasuryRewardCutRate at 10%. Thanks again for your wisdom and inputs.
Agreed. We should start the treasury accumulation now. We are still unsure of how and when it should be used but we need a treasury to be accumulating to be used for network growth when the times comes.
