# LIP Livepeer Treasury Bundle Discussion Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [July 21, 2023, 2:12pm UTC](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/lip-livepeer-treasury-bundle-discussion-thread/2115 "2023-07-21T14:12:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![NicoV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9e8a1a/32.png) [@NicoV](https://forum.livepeer.org/u/NicoV)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2023, 8:28pm UTC](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/lip-livepeer-treasury-bundle-discussion-thread/2115/5 "2023-10-04T20:28:13Z")
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: - [Livepeer Delta Phase Pre-Proposal - Sustainability, Public Goods Funding, Treasury, and Decentralization](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/livepeer-delta-phase-pre-proposal-sustainability-public-goods-funding-treasury-and-decentralization/2056) - [Getting more LPT into the hands of node operators](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/getting-more-lpt-into-the-hands-of-node-operators/1428) --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/lip-livepeer-treasury-bundle-discussion-thread/2115)._