Pre-Proposal: Surging into the future - The Transformation SPE

Treasury
1

TLDR:

Livepeer Foundation (LF) is launching an ecosystem strategy called Surge.

Surge proposes a Transformation SPE, initially operated by the Livepeer Foundation, that seeds new contribution mechanisms, coordinates talent, and directs a requested budget of 119,000 LPT to ship the workstream deliverables and in doing so, it can act as a catalyst to transform the speed of execution in the ecosystem.

Surge activates the tactical recommendations and workstreams put forward by Advisory Boards. It rapidly moves us from planning to action by more rapidly allocating capital towards the execution of key deliverables that increase participation and use on the network. By using the SPE model, the Foundation commits to managing budgets, being accountable for delivery, and reporting regularly and transparently to the community at large.

This proposal lays out Surge, the case for change, the Transformation SPE and the deliverables we commit to shipping in the next four months (to the end of 2025).

Thanks Advisory Boards - Now What?

Now is the moment for accelerated execution.

With the exploratory work of Advisory Boards now complete (huge thanks to all involved), all efforts move to executing the Workstreams.

Workstreams take the strategic priorities shaped by the Advisory Boards and the vision set in Cascade, and turn them into coordinated, resourced projects with clear outcomes.

Livepeer now has everything it needs to succeed:

  • An extended community of people who care deeply about the success of the project.

  • Valuable capital to deploy towards our most important activities and mechanisms to help us do it.

  • Talent to help us deliver and an extended network that can help us reach even more people.

With clarity around workstreams and this reminder of the power that resides in the network today through its technology and people, all there is to do now is execute on this strategic vision.

Itā€™s time to accelerate, to focus resources, to bring in new talent and to coordinate effectively across all our contributors and entities to create a value greater than the sum of our parts.

Surging into the future - An Ecosystem Strategy

Surge: a sudden powerful forward or upward movement, especially by a crowd or by a natural force

Surge is our proposed Ecosystem Strategy. It aims to:

  • Create Alignment and Focus around workstreams that clarify our priorities and where we need contribution, funding and support

  • Create Speed of execution by unlocking financial resources in our treasury and attracting new and existing talent towards priority tasks

  • Promote Coordination across these contributions, so we do not reduce quality or create bottlenecks as we scale up the depth and breadth of contributions that our workstreams demand

Surge is the logical next phase in the Cascade strategy set out by Doug back in 2024. That strategy talked about the focus on realtime AI and creating a cascade effect building in intensity over time.

It started with a ripple:

  • an AI SPE validating the impact of bringing AI Video jobs onto the network.

This then became a wave of new activity:

And now, it is time to Surge

Transforming the way we work - The Case for change

Now is the moment to ship: fast and together.

The most recent Workstreams post (recommended reading!) gives clarity around ā€œwhatā€ work needs to be done. Yet, itā€™s equally important to consider ā€œhowā€ it gets done in a way that meets our aims around focus, speed and coordination.

We previously shared some thoughts about the importance of SPEs and funding and coordination mechanisms to our longer term success. Here, we outline some current challenges within the way the ecosystem executes.

Alignment and Focus

Advisory Boards have created alignment around what work needs to be done and what actions the ecosystem should be prioritising. However, the current operating model does not reflect this new focus.

For example, the onchain treasury operates as a single pool and decisions are zero sum. Funds allocated to a proposal not listed in our priorities would direct funds away from the priorities and reduce that available pool to deliver on these key strategic projects.

We propose to set aside funds for the delivery of these strategic workstreams so that proposals separately made to the onchain treasury do not inhibit our ability to do what is needed to deliver on the strategic recommendations.

The LFā€™s aim is to bring focus to priorities through the way we allocate resources, explicitly drawing the line to show things that are out of focus. We can then reorient talent within our ecosystem towards delivering on, and being rewarded for, shipping things that matter most to the project.

Speed, through talent and financial resources, and coordination

The key idea behind Surge is to accelerate towards our strategic objectives.

Through workstreams, the Foundation has started to define this roadmap with clear priorities, targets and delivery dates which should increase executional speed across the ecosystem.

However, numerous blockers still exist across our talent, financial and coordination dimensions.

Today, if the right talent to execute resides within the ecosystem, they need to make a direct proposal to the onchain treasury to access funds. This immediately puts a (best case) 14 day window of delay on ALL contributions, as well as prioritising politicking over execution, which often requires different skillsets. This window of delay is even longer for new community members.

The simple reality is that this can make decentralised protocols uncompetitive when they (solely) rely on such mechanisms to make progress.

This is why we propose to create a Transformation SPE, under the stewardship of the Livepeer Foundation, to execute on delivery of the Livepeerā€™s critical workstreams.

This Foundation-stewarded SPE would address major challenges outlined already, by having it:

  • Make a proposal to access funds to deliver on all workstreams, and being accountable to the budgets and timelines within this proposal.

  • Utilise our experience to attract and hire talent that is focused solely on executing, and leave broader coordination/administration to the Foundation

  • Be the main driver of attracting talent to the ecosystem, leveraging relationships and the extended networks of our community to amplify talent needs.

  • Running processes like RFPs that would enable the ecosystem to access the best talent, at the right time, and at the right price to meet Livepeerā€™s needs

  • Demonstrate the power of the SPE model by creating a shining example of its value, and creating the tools, processes and collateral to enable other SPEs to effectively execute.

The Livepeer Foundation was created to coordinate and grow the ecosystem. Through a Transformation SPE, it can work transparently with the community and both new and old contributors to execute on strategic priorities under the existing SPE model.

Pre-Proposal - Creating the Transformation SPE

Mission

Livepeer Foundation proposes creation of the ā€œTransformation SPEā€. Its mission is to deliver on the workstreams as part of a ā€˜Surgeā€™ strategy that transforms the speed of delivery and scale of contributions possible using the existing SPE model and onchain treasury.

To do this, we specifically ask for the following:

  • The creation of the Transformation SPE with responsibility for delivering the workstreams as per the existing SPE structures and responsibilities

  • A budget of $786,000 which equates to 119,000 LPT (at current prices) to deploy towards talent and development costs for executing the workstreams

Rationale

The Livepeer Foundation was created with the intention to help tokenholders to more strategically allocate capital, coordinate R&D and execution, and attract new builders and contributors. Delivering on the execution workstreams set out by the Advisory Boards is the key way to deliver on these goals over the next 9 months.

Using the SPE model, as it was originally intended, creates a step change in the way that the ecosystem allcoates capital, attracts talent, keeps accountable to milestones, works in transparency, and allows the ecosystem to surge towards our exciting and optimistic future.

Key Terms

Surge: The strategy of the Livepeer ecosystem for the next 9 months - specifically focused on increasing focus, speed and coordination to deliver on our major workstreams

Transformation SPE: A vehicle funded by the onchain treasury. Stewarded by the Livepeer Foundation to enable ecosystem contributions that deliver the workstreams

RFP: A new mechanism underneath the Transformation SPE, which acts as an open process to attract, retain and price contributions that deliver on the Surge strategy

SPE Governance Structure

  • The Transformation SPE will be stewarded by the Livepeer Foundation. It will work with the Advisory Boards as needed to continue to represent all stakeholders of the ecosystem to the best of its ability.

  • It will deliver on the recommendations for Workstreams, including milestones and timelines specifically defined and scoped further below

  • Each workstream will have a Workstream Lead, who is accountable for delivery of the workstream scope and has decision making authority over its budget

  • It will deliver those recommendations at or within itā€™s budget of ABC123

  • It will allocate those funds in a fair and transparent manner. Fair, where possible, will be to run open and transparent RFP processes for teams to complete work. Transparent, will be to share monthly accounting records for the flow of funds to contributors, as well as quarterly Transparency Reports which review progress against milestones, deliverables and timelines

  • The SPE will hold its budgeted assets in a secure multisig SAFE with a threshold of known individuals as signers

Milestones & Timeline

We will execute on the Workstreams articulated through the process of Advisory Boards:

https://forum.livepeer.org/t/introducing-workstreams-a-new-era-of-execution-for-the-livepeer-project/3030

Workstream 1: The Brand & Communications workstream will create a new brand strategy, refresh the visual identity and launch a new website, giving Livepeer the presence and visibility online and at real life and virtual events that the community and tokenholders have been asking for. It will do this through transitioning Marketing to the Livepeer Foundation, using a design agency to help refresh the brand, and deploying more budget to key marketing initiatives.

Budget: $80,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 2: The Livepeer Builders workstream will further define and coordinate the go-to-market strategy for the ecosystem and attract new developers and founders to help accelerate PMF and growth. It does this by establishing a core ecosystem development team, running builder programs to drive awareness, and creating a strategy for new mechanisms to bring in the right builder talent.

Budget: $140,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 3: The Contributor Coordination workstream will establish operations for onboarding new contributors and coordinating across entities and workstreams to ensure we are shipping inline with agreed milestones. It does this by establishing Coordination roles and building a knowledge hub that create transparency and support execution

Budget: $60,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 4: The Ecosystem Data & Tooling workstream will meet the data needs of the entire ecosystem through a best in class explorer for Livepeer. It executes on this through structured data research and engaging a team via an RFP to build the next-gen explorer

Budget: $100,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 5: The LPT Participation workstream aims to have more LPT holders and participants by telling the story of LPT and explaining to different types of participants why participating in Livepeer is valuable. It does this by clarifying the narrative around LPT participation and then ensuring this story and messaging gets in front of the right audiences.

Budget: $60,000 USD equivalent LPT

Workstream 6: Core Protocol R&D workstream provides a range of enhancements to the way protocol development and research takes place, and reduces the reliance on Livepeer Inc as a potential bottleneck or point of failure for the wider network. It does this by establishing a Protocol Development team and shipping enhancements around the gateway that enable long term health and sustainability for the project in all circumstances.

Budget: $150,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 7: Core Developer Infrastructure workstream aims to make Livepeer a developer first platform by addressing barriers that include inconsistent video primitives. It delivers work to increase clarity around design of a payments clearinghouse for Livepeer and rolling out local SDKs.

Budget: $40,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 8: The Orchestrators and Supply workstream will proactively develop and expand the compute supply of the network by focusing on the needs and pain points of orchestrators with more focus than ever before. It does this by creating an Orchestrator Success function and exploring incentive structures that can attract new supply.

Budget: $120,000 USD equivalent

Workstream 9: The Active Capital Management workstream will research the use of capital in the ecosystem and make proposals for adjustments to the treasury cap, inflation, onchain liquidity, funding of ecosystem contributions and broader risk management through treasury diversification. It does this by establishing a Capital Working Group, formed mostly through members of the Capital Advisory Board.

Budget: $36,000 USD equivalent LPT

A detailed Scope of Work including Deliverables, Budget, and Roles and Responsibilities for projects with the necessary depth for this proposal can be found here:

Livepeer Project Workstreams

image
image1920Ɨ942 53 KB

Budget

Based on the workstream budgets, the collective funding required for the Transformation SPE is approx $786,000 which equates to 119,000 LPT (at current prices).

The funds will be held in a multisig and operated as the Transformation SPE treasury. To protect against price movement, the Foundation will use a covered call option to protect this value for the life of the Surge Strategy and Transformation SPE. The expiry date for both will be 30th December 2025.

This equates to roughly 25% of the current onchain treasury being allocated towards key priorities. We intend to rapidly reactivate accumulation to the onchain treasury through an LIP as soon as possible.

Areas of clarification (FAQ)

We appreciate this is quite a large proposal and so want to proactively address what we think may be some possible areas for clarification.

Isnā€™t this quite centralising within the Foundation? To a degree, the Foundation is given increased influence over the shape of how the strategic workstreams agreed by Advisory Boards are executed. However, we seek no more influence or power than any other SPE, and commit to operate under the same expectations and constraints as other SPEs. We want to be a leading example of the decentralised SPE structure.

What happens if I want to make a proposal outside the scope of work listed here?

The onchain treasury can still be accessed via other grantees SPEs, as it is today. However, contributors should ask themselves whether they can help accelerate the known priorities within the workstreams, and tokenholders/delegators who are voting should consider whether such an SPE is needed given the rigorous exploration and prioritisation process completed by the Advisory Boards. The Foundation will support any new SPEs as it would anyone in the ecosystem, but it will not specifically lend its time or focus towards supporting passage of new SPEs which are working on or towards the same purpose as the Surge workstreams.

What will the open RFP process look like?

RFPs run as part of Surge and the Transformation SPE. They will be visible on the Forum and any other key contributor or public platforms deemed necessary. RFPs will act as an informal extension of governance. Each RFP will include:

  1. Requirements: clearly scoped objective and details needed from submissions

  2. Submission period: period during which submissions will be accepted.

  3. Review period: time during which Livepeer Foundation (with ABs or other support) will review submissions and report its decision and reasoning back to the forum

What does this mean for the future of Governance? What will happen after the completion of the Transformation SPE?

The aim of delivering Surge is to identify ways in which we can balance governance with existing and new mechanisms to achieve our goals. At the completion of the Transformation SPE the Foundation will complete a major retro and report on its learnings. This may result in recommended changes to governance (in consultation with the Governance Advisory Board)

What is the difference between the Livepeer Foundation and the Transformation SPE?

The role of the Livepeer Foundation is to help align strategy across the ecosystem, support continued ecosystem growth and continual development of the ecosystem and protocol.

The SPE structure is a known coordination and funding mechanism within the Livepeer Ecosystem. The Foundation will use this structure to quickly allocate funds and attract contributors and to leverage one of Livepeers core assets - the community, their talents and their extended networks.

[We will add further elements to the FAQ here as needed]

Many thanks,

Rich, Ben, Rick and Joseph of the Livepeer Foundation

6 Likes
2

Thanks @b3nnn for posting. Itā€™s been a huge amount of work to get to get here over the past week and we are very excited to get this out to the community.

To acknowledge the elephant in the room: we realise that 119k LPT is a lot to ask for a 4-month period. This is a large ask in relation to previous SPE asks and the total size of the treasury (25% of current treasury).

My response is please read the detailed breakdown here: Livepeer Project Workstreams

We have grand ambitions and high executional standards for the future of the Livepeer project. We know that to execute on the roadmap well, we will need high quality talent and ample funding.

It is our mission to involve as many new and existing core contributors in the process. We would hope many SPE members will be involved in the execution of these ambitious plans.

For now: we want to hear your feedback!

Please spare some time to read: (a) the pre-proposal; and (b) the Livepeer Project workstreams breakdown. The Foundation team is available for any questions, concerns or ideas :fire:

image
image1920Ɨ1059 47.1 KB

3 Likes
3

How about investing treasury funds into DeFi lending protocols to generate sustainable yield, instead of relying solely on the treasury itself? Does the foundation still have grant node stake available? It also prints some LPT, correct?

I will not support any treasury renewal until the issue of idle LPT is addressed. DeFi lending platforms currently offer 5ā€“10% yield, yet we are not taking advantage of this. Instead, the proposal is to bring back the same ineffective treasury allocation tax idea.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, consider the COW DAO treasury model (see example here). Everything is transparent, and every proposal is voted on by all token holders via Snapshot. Even if current initiatives do not bring direct value, the treasury could at least be generating stable returns through proper yield strategies.

Continuing to dump LPT from the treasury without a sustainable plan risks pushing the token down to $1ā€“2, which could threaten the survival of the entire project. I originally accepted the centralization of the foundationā€™s grant node stake, but now you are asking for even more LPT from the treasury ā€” with minimal transparency or community say in how those funds are spent.

The proposed budget allocations also look highly questionable. For example:

  • $120K for the Orchestrator Supply workstream seems excessive, while

  • Only $150K is directed toward R&D and software development.

This is backwards. If demand exists, orchestrators will naturally adjust. The focus should be on R&D and real product development, not subsidizing supply.

Take this excerpt from Workstream 5:

ā€œThe LPT Participation workstream aims to have more LPT holders and participants by telling the story of LPT and explaining to different types of participants why participating in Livepeer is valuable.ā€

This is completely unnecessary if there is no genuine demand for what Livepeer offers. It reads more like marketing spin than meaningful progress.

The wisest path forward is to stop dumping treasury LPT and instead deploy it in DeFi strategies that generate stable yield. That would provide the highest revenue potential of any current LPT use case. We are fortunate to still be valued at $250M+ with near-zero revenue, but this will not last forever. The best hedge for sustainability is to invest in stable revenue sources until software adoption and real demand materialize. Otherwise, the project is simply waiting for a miracle.

Frankly, there are so many words in the current proposal that I canā€™t even tell what the actual goal is. Excuse my pessimism, but Iā€™ve been here since the Merkle Mine days ā€” and I still canā€™t believe the LPT market cap compared to what the protocol actually delivers.

1 Like
4

Exponential onchain grifting - the foundation is just Rich and a bunch of Rich friends extorting the remaining treasury out of the community.

 1. Who are the foundation members and why are they not actually long lasting Livepeer         community members.
  1. Rich and co are getting paid an undisclosed amount of funds to work at foundation doing what exactly? All foundations that are somewhat functional at least have transparency in the budgeting.
  2. Do we actually think the output of the workstreams are going to generate any kind of value to anyone? Ah yes, letā€™s spend 300k in another rebrand for what exactly?
  3. Has anyone looked at any onchain metric for lpt liquidity? There is literally none. Who ever handpick bro gets a slice of the 700k lpt from this proposal is just going to market sale into empty liquidity pools and crash the price even further.
  4. The future of this project is this revolutionary app: https://www.daydream.live and in ā€œAI researchā€ - all other apps, including streameth have left the ecosystem because of the sheer incompetence of Livepeer and Livepeer studio team.

Good luck, but this is not the way

1 Like
5

oh streameth left livepeer? can you elaborate?

6

It gives me hope that at least someone or a group of someoneā€™s is attempting to push Livepeer forward in an organized way.

I do agree with @Karolak and understand where @pablov is coming from. I donā€™t get how LPT can keep being dispatched from the treasury as payment when the overall strength of the token (especially on L2) is horrific.

On @pablovā€™s point specifically, I have to say the network feels like a bit of a joke if you actually try to plug an app into it. When we integrated it for image gen, at least once a week or every other day sometimes, weā€™d get complaints of models not responding and Iā€™d have to manually find the orchestrator running it and DM them to reboot. It cannot be this way.

I never understood the huge push with Daydream, and why that was the chosen direction (minus it relating to video), but maybe itā€™s the move - I donā€™t know.

I can support this initiative if base supply issues for AI are properly addressed, god awful UI/UX customer level friction is actually taken seriously for once, transcoding isnā€™t killed off silently, and LPT concerns are recognized and resolved.

I still struggle to see a use case for Livepeer AI at this current point when I can plug into OpenAI or some other provider and have 99.9% uptime, and affordable, quality models. Most app builders donā€™t actually care about the decentralized shtick - they just want something that works :man_shrugging:

This is coming from a long time Orchestrator who wants to see the network improve and really hopes an SPE like this can make it happen.

2 Likes
7

how can you compete if new model is released every other day and it takes month to implement it to livepeer network, also supporting all of these models is imposible at scale. Livepeer should focus on what it does best, trancoding. My last hope is stream.place if that fails I see no use case for this network anymore. Watching what Eli achieved in what, less than a year basically solo? Streaming works, self hosting works, transcoding offchain/onchain works, and it all is embedeed in 1 binary. Contrary to the rest of this shitshow which has 0 use case nobody wants that and nobody understand what is the use case for this

1 Like
8

Thanks to all the work that the Foundation team and advisory board members did to arrive at the recommendations, synthesis, and roadmaps through these workstreams. Time to execute. Here are a couple thoughts on the proposal:

Overall, Iā€™m quite supportive. A community driven process with ~20-30 AB members representing all stakeholder groups arrived at recommendations for what the project needs across all the important tracks, and now this proposal aims to allocate funding to community members, service providers, and talented executors across the web3 ecosystem to get moving and deliver. This seems well worth 25% of the treasury, considering the recommendations are pretty comprehensive across probably 90%+ of what the project is working on. While still leaving plenty available for active management (covered in the markets track), and additional proposals.

The breakdowns of the budgets within the individual workstreams, accompanied by the initial milestones, attempt to make it more concrete for everyone what will actually be delivered. (People do have to dig in to find that info, but itā€™s there). Of course things can always be more concrete, and perhaps some of those details can be filled in with feedback, but itā€™s a great start.

From a more detailed perspective, itā€™s impossible for every detail across every track to make everyone happy, but here are a couple nuanced comments.

  • I think the protocol workstream should consider a bigger budget so it can run the Immunefi bounty program. This is expensive, but is a huge public good for the ecosystem, and often protects significant user value in the protocol.
  • My personal opinion is the brand workstream should focus more on communications and less on visual identity. The opportunity for the Livepeer network - in realtime AI video in particular, but also in all the other areas being worked on including agents and open social - is huge. And I think telling that story to the market and potential users and associating that potential with the project is more impactful than visual refreshes.
  • I suggest separating the notion of ā€œrepopulating the treasuryā€, which requires an LIP, from the funding of this particular SPE, which is voted on as a treasury proposal. They neednā€™t be bundled together nor debated at the same time.
  • Many of the tracks do require development, and development isnā€™t explicitly restricted to the Core R&D workstream. For example Orchestrator experience and supply side certainly requires ongoing development of Orch tools. While marketing and demand gen growth efforts are important and funded here too, most of the funding appears earmarked for development related tasks. Sounds like people may not have grasped that.
  • A lot of points that people are making in the comments - the need for active treasury management, adding supply for AI, etc - ARE the recommendations of the advisory boards, and the intent behind this proposal does appear to be to access the funding to hire the people or fund the community members who will actively work on those initiatives!

Overall, the workstreams do promise A LOT. It will be difficult to deliver on every milestone listed within the timeframes listed. But I do think the initiative of earmarking funding for each, and getting started with RFPs to find and fund dedicated community members and teams to take ownership and tackle specific goals recommended by the community is great! Excited to hear what everyone else thinks.

2 Likes
9

what about those funds livepeer foundation acquired? We are talking 1,5+ mln LPT yielding 2.2k lpt+ daily. I thought that was the initial funding for the foundation (thus foundation), not another SPE like proposal?

10

Hi all, thanks for your interest and questions. I realise there is a lot to digest here and we appreciate anyone who takes the time to read it and respond!

We will be collecting all the questions thus far and getting a response on Monday, along with some further discussion at the Water Cooler.

At this point I would call on more voices in the community to give feedback to get a fuller picture of where the ecosystem stands. There is nothing more helpful in scoping the final version of the proposal.

Cheers in advance for further feedback. We look forward to a great open session on Monday! :raising_hands:

1 Like
11

Iā€™m not gonna comment on the rest but this is thanks to Doug and Doug alone and his personal relationship with Grayscale and other big investors and his marketability (possibly with Coinbase too).

Also, Eric. Brian Armstrong knows Eric personally. They all know about and probably appreciate what Livepeer is trying to achieve, hence COIN50. Thatā€™s what we have.

But yeah. Revenue does not justify.

12

You are 100% right here, there is no point in keeping idle hardware on the network, and thereā€™s a lot of it!
It appears that Livepeer is experiencing an identity crisis as transcoding demand drops, and we are transitioning to AI, which doesnā€™t generate much real demand on the network.
I prefer less ambitious goals with more minor funding requirements and crystal clear transparency.

3 Likes
13

If I wanted to invest in connection I d go straight and bought mag7 stocks, their ceos are the guys to know lol

14

There are many questions that are easy to answer, no need to wait for a community call that no one attends to answer these:

  1. Who are the foundation members and why are they not actually long lasting Livepeer community members?
  2. Rich and co are getting paid an undisclosed amount of funds to work at foundation doing what exactly? All foundations that are somewhat functional at least have transparency in the budgeting.

Looking forward to your reply.

1 Like
15

Thanks for all the hard work in bringing this together and the great workstream overview!

Just dropping my first thoughts here before todays watercooler. Might revisit them later and/or give more feedback:

The focus on realtime AI is Inc.'s plan and vision. But the foundation should be more independent and also consider other network participants and their needs/goals for the network (E.g. stream.place or streamETH, who sadly seem to have already left the project).
I also think there needs to be more clarity and transparency regarding the finances of the foundation

On the workstreams:
Overall, I think the 9 workstreams are too overwhelming. Some of them are really ambitious and all are starting at the same time. IMO the better approach would be to start with fewer workstreams (2-3) and add more once some are finished (at least the first phase). Some comments on each of them:

Brand & Communications
Donā€™t see this as an immediate necessity. Seems weird to do a/another rebranding before PMF

Livepeer Builders
Great initiative overall! But is the core product good enough to focus on bringing in builders? Reading the comments here and on Discord makes me think that bringing in builders at this point could hurt Livepeerā€™s reputation since some core functionality is missing/not stable enough. And is the focus here purely on AI?

Core Contributor Coordination
Makes sense, but questionable if spending $15k/month is reasonable for coordination? How many contributors do we expect to attract to justify this?

Ecosystem Data & Tooling
Like the idea of this workstream, but again the question on whether this is a critical issue or more a nice to have? Does the core product depend on this data, or could we shift our focus to other workstreams first?

LPT Participation
This seems weird to me. IMO, Shilling LPT should definitely not be in a workstream

Core Protocol R&D
I donā€™t think I have enough insight to fully judge this workstream, but one question that came to mind: What will the planned FTE engineers work on if the change requests from other workstreams are delayed?

Core Developer Infrastructure
For me, this seems one of the most pressing issues that Livepeer has. So the timeline of having a draft/requirements by Q1 26 is a bit confusingā€¦ Iā€™d rather weā€™d delay other workstreams to accelerate this one. Unless Iā€™m the only one who thinks this is a major issue that Livepeer has?

Orchestrators & Compute Supply
This is another weird one for me. E.g. I donā€™t get why we need a $20k compute supply roadmap if we donā€™t know the actual demand resp. if we have ~30-50+ more or less idle GPUs on the network. Same goes with the delegation & incentives strategy and the orchestrator support. I just donā€™t think the supply side is a major issue at this time. The only deliverable that I get and support is the pool prototype.

Active Capital Management
Was on the AB for this, so wonā€™t say much here. But to those requesting a more active treasury management: This is part of this workstream.

TL;DR:
Reading some of the comments from those currently building on Livepeer, shouldnā€™t we first thoroughly identify the current shortcomings and pain points of the network to improve the core functionality? I suppose this could be combined with some sort of market research.

I donā€™t think the budget request is crazy high, but we need to consider that this is just step 1 of all the workstreams. So I guess would be a though sell to request another $750k+ in 4 months for step 2 of the workstreams - without having seen a significant demand increase. I hope this doesnā€™t sound too critical since I really think each workstream makes sense (with the exception of the LPT participation one maybe :wink: ), but it just think itā€™s too much to handle at the same time and itā€™s missing some priorities. Thatā€™s why Iā€™d like to see a bit more of a focused approach on less workstreams. Maybe the community and/or the ABs could decide on 2-3 workstreams that are the most mission critical and then focus on executing them first.

3 Likes
16

Great input @vires-in-numeris!

Can you clarify this sentence:

ā€I donā€™t think the budget request is crazy high, but we need to consider that this is just step 1 of all the workstreams. So I guess would be a though sell to request another $750k+ in 4 months for step 2 of the workstreams - without having seen a significant demand increase. I hope this doesnā€™t sound too critical sinceā€¦ā€

Excited for the Watercooler Chat later today.

17

Hi all,

Iā€™ll give my two cents here.

Based on these workstreams, the proposal we are discussing addresses only the first column of each workstream (see the Notion page that has been shared in the pre-proposal).

That means that for Brand & Communications, 80,000USD will be used only to: ā€œcreate a new brand strategy, refresh some branding assets and launch a new websiteā€œ by the end of the year. Honestly, that seems a lot of money for these activities.

For the Livepeer Builders workstream, 140,000 USD will be used to ā€œestablish the ecosystem development team, launch a builder campaign, define core opportunities, and scope out a new funding mechanismā€œ. Half of these things are intangible and just ā€œanalysisā€ kind of tasks. There already is a development team that is paid by Livepeer, and also the current foundation team is paid by Livepeer.

For the ecosystem data & tooling workstream, 100,000 USD will be used mainly to ā€œassess and fix existing data gapsā€. Honestly, are 100,000 USD needed for an assessment?

I can continue for every workstream, but in general, what I am seeing is that most of this stuff is intangible, planning, analysis, and very little is actually shipping and doing tangible stuff.

Looking at the chart and price of the LPT token, asking almost 800K USD at this stage seems weird, to be honest, even asking 400K USD equivalent would be weird. These are consulting fees; we are not hiring BCG to do this (luckily)ā€¦

Once again, there are already 4 people in the Livepeer Foundation who are being paid a monthly salary from Livepeer. The members of the Advisory boards are already employed in other projects and are, as the word suggests, advisors.
Who will be the contractors hired to handle these activities that are mainly analysis/strategy activities? Shouldnā€™t this be done by the internal Livepeer Foundation team that already exists and that should have all the necessary knowledge of the ecosystem to carry out this analysis? Are you hiring more people? Will they be paid in LPT tokens or in fiat? Will Livepeer Inc. pay them? If you are paying contractors in LPT, wonā€™t this just increase the selling pressure on the token?