# Pre-Proposal: Restart the Treasury Reward Cut at 10% (Again!) **URL:** \ **Category:** Treasury\ **Created:** [June 26, 2026, 8:37am UTC](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/pre-proposal-restart-the-treasury-reward-cut-at-10-again/3273 "2026-06-26T08:37:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![dob](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.livepeer.org/dob/32/7_2.png) [@dob](https://forum.livepeer.org/u/dob)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2026, 1:20pm UTC](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/pre-proposal-restart-the-treasury-reward-cut-at-10-again/3273/17 "2026-08-28T13:20:11Z")
I’m supportive of restarting the reward cut. (And raising the cap should that be considered in this proposal). There is an exciting vision for the future of Livepeer across both the product and network layers, and funding the needed public goods via the treasury is one of the best investments that the collective token holders of Livepeer can make. - This doesn’t preclude better active treasury management, which is a separate worthwhile path. - I’d also like to push back against the narrative that treasury funding is actually a major contributor to negative LPT market impact. The amount that has been disbursed from the treasury is almost a negligible drop in the bucket relative to inflationary LPT emitted to node operators (who also have real costs!) and delegators. The 2.0 tokeneconomics, complete with rewarding the nodes doing real work, validators to prevent the self dealing/leaching, and MFS, aim to reduce the impact of the latter. The protocol security, core dev on public goods as laid out in the Network Eng SPE II, and the upcoming GTM SPE proposals are all great examples of items that the protocol should be funding if the project is going to succeed at capturing demand, while keeping every participants’ value secure. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.livepeer.org/t/pre-proposal-restart-the-treasury-reward-cut-at-10-again/3273)._