Hi all - we’ve been working with a fantastic senior advisor, Danilo S. Carlucci, that we’d like to formally bring into the community to grow our Rally creator ecosystem and optimize our engagement strategies. Danilo has an impressive background having been in a senior community role at YouTube and has an extensive network of partners, creators and influencers that could be interested in joining Rally. As such, I’d like to propose him for a $RLY Grant from the Advisors and Collaborators pool, and engage him from the Community Treasury for strategic marketing consultancy and guidance on all things creator growth. Highlights:
41,667 $RLY per month for a period of 12 months from Advisors and Collaborators pool (with ability to terminate if it’s not working out)
$4.5k/mo strategic consulting services for an initial period of 6 months (Community Treasury)
We’re setting a new precedent with this proposal. As Rally grows, it’s in the best interest of the community to identify advisors that can bring outsized value to the network in the form of creators that can drive transaction volume. We have received lots of recommendations to work with Danilo, and believe he would be an extremely valuable resource and a great initial experiment to help scale the network.
Sounds very reasonable if he can deliver on the promise of solid leads that would grow the network. Also, feel like the Rally team could use the support engaging with leads.
“if it’s not working out” is a bit vague, however. Perhaps some target number of referrals in the first 3 months that are tied to the award tiers. Ex: 3 referrals at T4 and above, with at least one T6. Even requiring a single “high level T5/6” referral keeps it honest with a tangible deliverable. Sounds like this shouldn’t be a challenge at all given the proposal background info, and firmly establishes the advisors value vs. others bringing in lower level referrals. Also makes crystal clear working out vs. not in terms that are transparent for the community.
I like Grand’s suggestions for transparency of KPIs. The crypto environment is always dynamic, so if (for example) he does 100 T3’s and only 1 T4, I think we’d all think he’s doing a great job and keep going. The more important point is to force us as a community to have a discussion based on KPIs
+1 for transparency. However, we shouldn’t get overly caught up with these specific tiers as KPIs. He may bring on a T5/T6 creator “for free” at the T1/T2 level (which is great). Rather, for this first “community advisor”, I we should just make sure to openly surface and discuss all of the creators that Danilo is onboarding and has in the pipeline. He himself can be part of those discussions in the community. If community members don’t like how things are going we can vote to terminate.
Rally is starting to get into new creator categories and there are a lot of human elements and relationships involved in getting into these new categories. I believe adding specific KPIs for an advisor makes sense once the flywheel is spinning a bit faster.
Fair enough. My thinking is that when we bring someone in to grow the network, they should be accountable for growing the network. Danilo cannot be successful in his role if we can’t define success or network growth in tangible terms that go beyond evangelism. I would rather set clear goals for him to work towards (and really allow him to define those goals too) and adjust these goals as needed, than not to have any at all. Success then can be measured by progress towards these goals in a quantitative way alongside more qualitative measures, not instead of them.
I’d actually hope he demand more clarity around expectations for this role.
I think we should move quickly on bringing him on, so I think it is fair to sort out expectations (however you determine them) after the vote in collaboration with the core Rally team.
Agreed. Some Rally team members will be working very closely with Danilo in a “hands on” manner. I will mention this in the proposal along with developing key KPIs over time, especially as we bring on more “arms length” advisors who need strict KPIs to operate against. Would also love to be more transparent with the community about what KPIs matter for Rally Network. Recently, we’ve been centering on a simple transaction volume metric for small, medium, and large creators, namely $5k, $10k, or $25k of support volume, respectively. So for Danilo, we’d work towards KPIs around # of small, medium and large creators per month, and another KPI around whether those creators are reaching those support volume thresholds.