LIP Livepeer Treasury Bundle Discussion Thread

The Livepeer Delta Pre Proposal is now moving to a distinct set of formal LIPs. As such, each LIP bundle deserves its own discussion thread, rather than lumping everything together into one big thread which can muddle specific issues. This is the thread for LIP-91: the Livepeer Treasury LIP bundle.

1 Like

LIP-91 is now live in Draft status, and open for feedback and discussion here. You can read the full LIP, including the rationale, in the LIP repo linked above. The brief summary is:

LIP-91 introduces an onchain treasury to the Livepeer protocol, which is governed by the LPT holders. It is a bundle consisting of two sub-LIPs, both of which can be discussed here.

LIP-89 The Livepeer Treasury
This LIP proposes deploying a custom instance of the OpenZeppelin Governor Framework to create a treasury. It shares the parameters for proposing a transfer of funds out of the treasury (anyone staking 100 LPT can propose), voting mechanics (stake weighted voting following Livepeer’s existing onchain governance conventions), and voting timelines and execution process. It does not specify how funds will get into the treasury, which is left for LIP-92.

LIP-90 Funding Entity Conventions
This is a Meta LIP to describe social conventions for the governance process over the treasury. It specifies that the treasury is to be used for funding public goods that can be justified to benefit the majority of the Livepeer ecosystem. It also specifies that the intent is that treasury proposals predominantly (only) fund Special Purpose Entities, or SPEs, rather than end funding recipients. These SPEs can be individuals, committees, companies, DAOs, etc that don’t intend to use a majority of the funds themselves, but instead have specialized knowledge at how to distribute those funds for a specific purpose - such as retroactively incentivizing video builders, or proactively running a grants program, or running liquidity/bridging programs, etc.

Technical spec
There is also a technical spec for the code and implementation available as part of this LIP. The code is written and is being reviewed and set up for an audit competition as well.

Please review the draft LIPs and share any comments, questions, or feedback here, so that we can get it into form before moving to a vote.

1 Like

LIP-91 and the associated bundled LIPs 89 and 91, have now moved to the Last Call phase. This means that after at least 10 days pass, they can be moved to the Proposed Phase and open for a vote.

FTR there is now a devnet with the upgraded Delta contracts that can be tested on a separate explorer as well! Accessible here: Delta Goerli Explorer

For full details on how to setup your account and what to test, check this guide: Testing the Livepeer Treasury

The more feedback we can get, the better! Thanks all.

I support funding of innovative video projects driving demand to the network, but am voting no on LIP-92 because I’m still of the opinion that one can’t expect equal altruism from “good” (by shared social values) actors on a network when rent-seeking behaviour by others isn’t addressed first.

Furthermore if a cut is taken equally from all operators, I think the effectiveness of the program should be first proven at smaller scale. As highlighted in the discussion topic by the Messari chads, to warrant a 1% cut there would need to be a 225% increase in demand. Wouldn’t it be better if we could prove that we can reach that goal first ?

The discussion on this can be found in these forum topics: