Proposal - Jeremiah Owyang as Rally Advisor

As content creators are finding new ways to engage their fans, different types of content and new channels are continuing to emerge. The more insights and advice that the Rally Network can get from the innovators and folks on the bleeding edge of developing trends, the more the network can grow.

We’ll be posting a proposal to Snapshot to add a new advisor, Jeremiah Owyang, to assist with He’s a serial entrepreneur and founder, a tech analyst, and is himself a content creator. Jeremiah was one of the first Social Media industry analysts at Forrester, a decade ago, and he’s a known industry insider. Visit Jeremiah’s Twitter, Linkedin, and Website, and check out his short intro video:

Rally would receive the benefit of Jeremiah’s experience and expertise in exploring mediums for content creation and distribution - including social audio, like Clubhouse, Sonar, and whatever comes next - to create and experience new content, working with creator communities to think about how they can use crypto, identifying creators who may be a good fit for the Rally community and crypto, and generally providing product guidance.

In exchange for advisory services, Jeremiah would receive:

  • 20,833 $RLY per month for a period of 12 months from Advisors and Collaborators pool (with the Rally community holding the right to terminate)

Please share your thoughts!

1 Like

I worked with Jeremiah for 11 years as a Kabam advisor. One of the nicest, smartest, well-connected people.

He is an early Clubhouse user and well plugged into that community. I really hope the Rally community sees the benefit of his expertise


I love the idea and support bringing Jeremiah onboard! I would prefer a 6 month term (renewable by vote in 6 months) until we have a better framework for evaluating advisor contributions for reasons detailed below.

This next part is more about advisors in general.

As Rally continues to add on advisors, I would also love to see an update on Danilo S. Carlucci’s contributions and compensation from the Rally Treasury. I believe he was brought in in late October or early Nov. but I honestly haven’t heard a whisper since and I’m fairly engaged in the community. I feel uncomfortable with the current framework where advisor accountability has remained more or less squarely on the core Rally team without any cadence of performance updates.

More broadly, without some form of regular communication or dashboard that the Rally team (in their ministerial capacity) shares about ongoing community expenditures, the community has little insight into Advisor contributions to the network, leaving us ill equipped to exercise our powers judiciously.

@Grand you make a very salient point about how Rally community works with advisors generally. A few months ago, we were just trying to get advisors to help us get into some new categories, make intros, and help get things off the ground. Thus, we didn’t overly structure the proposals and KPIs since it felt premature. Note: I will definitely report on activities with Danilo soon.

With this next wave of advisors, like Jeremiah, you can see that we’re doing $RLY only (no monthly retainer from community treasury), and he’s posted a video explaining what he’ll be doing directly to the community. This is already an evolution from the first advisor we brought on.

Moving forward from here, I also believe we’ll move AWAY from advisors for the most part unless it’s for brand new categories/verticals (like Clubhouse), and instead focus on structured playbooks within already working verticals - seems like Music, streamers/esports, and digital NFT artists could be our sweet spots for a while.

For these more established categories, rather than have general advisors, we’ll figure out how to create much more structure and accountability. This will vary - for example, it could be someone raising actual investment dollars on their own to form a new Rally-focused agency/company (demonstrating skin in the game), with our treasury matching some portion of this. Another example could be $RLY bounties tied to actual on-boardings.

Expect to see some of these concepts introduced in the coming weeks.

1 Like

Agreed we need to find a way to do community reporting. I think 12 months is reasonable still as we continue to evolve the way we work with advisors and expand the network to new platforms and creators, but agree as the network grows we want to shorten these up and put more KPIs in place.

@mvellank let’s put heads together on how we can evolve our reporting

1 Like

Very cool. I like this line of thinking @mvellank. Fair enough and look forward to an update from the BD advisors.

+1. I’ve been following Jeremiahs work for years (he was an early thought leader in social and community). I think he’d be a great addition to the community.


Excellent proposal and Jeremiah seems like the right person to take on this assignment. @Grand mentioned about tracking advisors progress. From my experience, it is hard to measure advisors against KPIs as they are not employees/core contributors. With advisors, it is pretty binary and usually easy to spot if there is value or no value. Market feedback and other communications can certainly improve the perceived value of an advisor.


Yeah, any sort of update would honestly suffice. My main point here is that we can only celebrate the contributions that we can take into account. Put simply, the community needs some visibility into advisors ongoing contributions, measurable against KPIs or otherwise.

By all accounts Jeremiah appears to be a true rockstar in the space, so grateful to have him join us!!! And so we as a community owe it to him as well to provide a “mic and a platform” to share with the community what he is doing. This video is an excellent start and I hope we can extend an equal opportunity to every advisor to share with us in whatever format so long as we can see the value or no as you put it. Even as we evolve the role more generally towards the structure mvellank mentioned, let’s work towards building a communications channel with the community that ensures their value remains apparent to all.


Hi all, thank you again for the approval votes. I look forward to our team meeting later this week, where I will provide some updates and upcoming milestones we will hit.


We need to extend the voting … 3 days for the release of $250k of rally is not a light matter…
I would like to know more about this. Are we getting a stake? Who setting the time line and goals? Who is checking up on things?

ALL - I want to propose amending Jeremiah’s advisor agreement with us. He started just under a month ago but has been doing PHENOMENAL work. He is a true believer in Rally and has been helping us onboard Clubhouse creators and business thought leaders at a rapid clip. He has already become more than an advisor - this is truly a part-time gig for him (working 20+ hours per week).

I’d like to double his amount of RLY tokens and provide a 4,500 USDC monthly retainer while expanding the scope of his original proposal. The expanded scope would include:

  1. Increased velocity of new creator sign-ups on Clubhouse and Business Thought Leaders
  2. Add LinkedIn Creators market as a new target vertical
  3. Take on more workload in terms of directly pitching creators, as well as spending time each week focusing on their continued success and use cases
  4. Help Rally make a splash in these verticals and execute on tactical marketing strategies around coin launches

Expanding his arrangement is a no-brainer. Some highlights from his last 3 weeks:

  • Made warm intros to ~20 Clubhouse creators (many have launched or are actively onboarding like Bomani, Ed Nusbaum, Jason Steinhauer, Minh Do, Matty Mo). Many more will be incoming after this first wave

  • Made warm intros to ~15 Business Thought Leaders (many are gearing up for launch such as Peter Shankman, Joseph Jaffe, Scott Monty, and David Berkowitz)

  • Not only has Jeremiah made these intros, he has joined all the calls and done a great job pre-selling these creators, brainstorming use cases for them, and developing roll-out / marketing plans. Keep in mind that I’ve also been slowing down Jeremiah as it’s more than we can currently process (a good problem to have!)

Consider this a “progress report” for the great work Jeremiah has been doing and the hours he’s been putting in. I would like to hold other advisors to this standard, and if they are not meeting the bar, we as a community can and should terminate / part ways.


I’m all for it - Jeremiah has been killing it!! :smiley:

1 Like

Yes, all for rewarding excellence here. Jeremiah has been a highly visible, vocal and most importantly effective evangelist for Rally. At about $18,600 in support volume, Bomani alone has brought in what would be roughly one month’s compensation for Jeremiah. Keep at it Jeremiah, and thank you for all you are brining to the community.

To be clear that I understand the expanded comp here, would the retainer expire at the same time as the 12 month contract? While the core team is currently responsible for tracking and accountability of all advisors etc…having a system where such engagements require a vote to cancel puts the burden of proof (so to speak) on the broader community. I don’t think this is sustainable or in the best interests of the project. Particularly as the project grows, I feel strongly that the burden to show one’s work should fall squarely on those engaged by Rally. I think it far more prudent to have all advisors and others on retainer, for example the Delphi Digital, to expire after a set term. In order to continue the engagement, the party can then put forth a proposal that also outlines their contributions, deliverables etc, and why/what they intend to bring in the next phase of their engagement. This also provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the compensation should they exceed expectations or there is some meaningful change in the price of RLY.
To me this provides a stronger alignment of incentives to deliver along with a system that necessitates progress reports, since ongoing compensation will depend on their accomplishments. TL;DR - In the absence of a clear rational for an “endless” retainer, create a best practice of set period of time that requires a vote for renewal instead of a vote to end based on the reasons I outlined above.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

1 Like

Keep up the good work…
I have to be the negative nelly here. As an investor [ie holder of rally], after 1 month of work we reward people? I get that we want to expand his role but we are paying people some crazy numbers for a salary for a start up. In just 1+ month we have doled out close to $1m USD annualized [if my calculations are correct] on salaries and consulting. That is a big number!!! In other platforms and business adventures that I have been involved in … the employees put in a lot of sweat equity with rewards if they attain certain goals. If we want to reward people for hard work we need some type of bonus structure or public goals before we give
people raises/bonus.

Thanks @Grand, per Jeremiah’s initial proposal, there is a 12 month term, and we have the ability to terminate at any time. This new proposal will be an amendment to the existing one, and so will keep with the existing term. We can revisit along the way if necessary, but it’s natural that there is more change at the beginning as we’re establishing the appropriate working relationship. For future advisors, I like the idea of this term being shorter, but again we have termination rights and are managing these advisors VERY closely. We only have a couple advisors right now and are not looking to expand unless we find exception people who can add immense value. To your point, the $18k Bomani launch is great, and that would have been even bigger had we fixed the known issues with how flow controls and network rewards function. As a side note, I will be retiring our crypto influencer advisor (who has done an excellent job btw, I just don’t think it’s a segment that is ready for Rally yet, so will revisit in future).

@sixmofo I appreciate your continued skepticism on these matters as forces us to really think about things and articulate the value for these types of arrangements. I’ll start by asking what you think are reasonable spend level for a startup looking to achieve a $100M exit. How about a $1B outcome? What about a $100B outcome?

I don’t want to belittle your concerns but I also want to be extremely direct. Many on this team have built $1B+ companies, and as a former VC I’ve certainly studied what it takes to build value at all of those levels. Millions per month, or even tens of millions per month, is a typical budget for startups looking to be $1B companies. We think Rally can be a $100B project. The crypto market is insanely hot and fast moving, and I assure you that other projects are looking at what we’re doing and will be throwing orders of magnitude more capital at social tokens and creators than we are. Dapper Labs literally just raised $250M. We can’t sit here wondering about the $1M on an ANNUALIZED basis that we’re spending when we’re getting fantastic ROI. There is probably only ONE person with Jeremiah’s skill set to unlock Clubhouse and related areas for us. What is that worth to Rally Network over time? Maybe $1B in network value? $10B?

Additionally, it’s SO hard to find great talent. Execs at big tech companies regularly get $1M+ packages. We shouldn’t nickel and dime exceptional talent. You get what you pay for.

We just raised ~$30M into the community treasury and so we should spend aggressively so that we can later raise even more into the treasury. Spending less now directly hurts the community’s treasury to raise more later.

This is how you build massive companies/projects. Alternatively, we can sit on the $30M, be shrewd, and end up with a $100M project with the RLY token maintaining price or likely shrinking in the long-term as more tokens get released (which has second order negative impacts on the value of network rewards, etc)

There are many other things worth spending on too - PR, marketing, creator sales folks, etc. But I hope you understand my point. Let’s not look at $1M spend and say that “it’s a big number”. Let’s not lose sight of the big picture.


Agreed with Mahesh; even looking across our existing advisors and collaborators, Jeremiah has been in a league of his own. Finding great talent is difficult; rewarding them for valuable contributions is the easy part. I’m fully supportive.

@Grand brought up in another post on Delphi but it’s related to this post as well so I’ll address here. We are working with PTI our compliance strategic partner, to add a senior Finance leader that will be 100% dedicated to Rally and Rally community facing. She’s fantastic and starts March 1. We’ll be working with her to provide more detailed reporting to the community on token and cash spend.

The net of this is that we can’t expect to recruit world class talent and put very short stints in place; no one wants to take on an engagement or job where there is high opportunity cost, and “traditional” companies that offer “traditional” employment contracts or vendor arrangements. Delphi and Jeremiah have many other opportunities that are easily available to them rather than put themselves up for public scrutiny and short leashes on performance. That being said, we absolutely need to seriously up level our review process and building-in-public KPIs such that we end advisory, vendor, and any other token/cash compensation when there is non-performance.

Good thread all around!

1 Like

I think you misread what i was saying …Some of the jobs we gave people did not require the salaries. IMHO. That is what I was saying there. I am all for spending but I want accountability, a clear set of goals, and milestones we need to set before hand. Do we have a review process? I want to see clear definition of jobs and people accountable. I don’t want to question every job we hand out but we have over paid on a few. I want others to read my posts and ask questions and have a view of Rally. How many people even know we spent that money?
I see all your points; everyone says see the big picture but you have to also be mindful that the big picture needs to have definitions, goals, accountability and timelines.

1 Like

[quote=“KevinChou, post:17, topic:149”]
Perhaps I am just of a different opinion, or perspective here. I like the idea that everyone engaged by the project is accountable to RLY holders by vote in a codified way. What you call public scrutiny here, I really see as community accountability.
I don’t think it is fair to ask the community to keep track of every advisor and group we engage for services, or to rely (trust) on the central Rally team to keep them accountable. Why not code accountability into the relationship, via some recurring snapshot vote? Even if the vote is simply a reminder of those engagements that are active, or a renewal contract and serves as a prompting if you will for the community to ask questions, get informed and learn more about their valuable contributions. I see an opportunity to take pressure off the core team, and create a more direct relationship between advisors and the RLY community. A lot of this might be governance questions that remain to be tackled by the community and demand a much different discussion.
I trust your instinct here even if I disagree on such votes serving as a disincentive/short leash to partners. In the end, we are certainly in agreement that we want all the best talent we can attract for Rally and I’ll back the proposed approach.

@mvellank we are fortunate to have Jeremiah with us! Thank you for proposing the changes to his agreement. He is a doer and should be adequately compensated for his involvement! We need more contributors like Jeremiah!

Very few use cases for CC are proven today, but we need money and talent to discover niches and novel use cases. Things are heating up, getting competitive, but top talent is finite. We need to move fast and spend money! Taking into account current developments in consumer facing crypto applications, $30m raised by the Rally community is a modest amount. If there is demand for RLY, we should sell more to position the network for experimentations and growth.

It is OK if we make mistakes along the way @sixmofo. Every startup makes mistakes and may appear not capital efficient during the hyper growth phase. The core team is extremely competent and has real reputation attached to this project.

Very optimistic about new use case that the Rally Network can uncover!

1 Like