Voting and Governance: A solution

RLY is the backbone of Creator Coins [CCs]. In recent months CCs have grown substantially but at times there appears a need for urgent solutions. Solutions rely on leadership and the professionals doing the day to day, week to week decision making. Long term growth is not something we may not fully appreciate. We can see the daily growth but we do not always see the big picture. The Rally team is trying to find the right mixture of people and infrastructure allowing the RALLY project to stay on this exponential path. In our personal jobs we have autonomy in decision making. Keeping us from going to the boss for every little decision. The same should be applied to the Rally team! If the community relinquishes some decision making, we will reach our success quicker. Accountability is the key to success. Therefore I would like to suggest we implement some type of holding period for any hire outside of the core team.
RLY is the backbone of CCs concept with the assumption, the community govern. This is awesome but currently we need to give some “wiggle room” to the drivers of this growth so below I am proposing we do just that. This benefits the growth of the RALLY project, the price of RLY and allows us to go FULL STEAM AHEAD!

Below is what I would propose. I would invite suggestions and comments positive or negative.

As Rally and the CCs are off to an explosive start, there appears to be some constraints on the team. This proposal addresses some of the needs, allowing the Rally team to do what they do best… BUILD. Rally, a decentralized token, allows for the community to govern but does not allow the Rally team to be the best they can be. Sometimes the big picture gets lost by the community [I have been ignorant to that fact in recent weeks]. The Rally team needs to be allowed to make timely decisions that are in line with the roadmap. If we allow this, it would foster better solutions to daily or weekly problems.
Voting for Creators, contractors, spending and such is something that the community would be better served by allowing the RALLY team the ability to streamline decisions and have some “wiggle room” that aligns Rally and CCs development. After all, we as investors, users, and believers sometimes lose site of the big picture. This proposal would allow for the following:

  1. Creator coin approval would be done by a team [no need for individual votes]. Rally leadership will suggest a team and then the community will vote on that
  2. Any Treasury decisions over $750,000/$1M USD would need the vote of the community allowing the day to day decisions to the treasury team.
  3. Distributions of pay in the form of rally would have a vesting schedule [TBD] after hired. Allowing the community to be assured everyone’s goals are properly aligned.


Thank you for getting this discussion going.

Admittedly, it can be difficult to consider the challenges faced in the short term while a long term strategy is being deployed. I appreciate that you noted that, and that you’re also coming up with solutions.

  1. I agree 100% and I feel like the sentiment of the community on this idea is positive.
  2. I’m honestly not super familiar with the operations of the tresaury, but I generally support giving autonomy to the treasury leadership for day to day operations. $750k might be a high threshold but I’d be curious to know what others think.
  3. Can you please provide some more details on how you would ideally see the RLY vested?


We tend to hire people for 6 month clips so I was thinking since we include a salary and RLY payment; the RLY award is “vested” at the end of the contract over the next 6 months. This allows the employee to harvest the fruits of their hard work and the RLY stakeholders, the Creators and the supporters goals’ to be aligned.
As for the large number of 750k/1m … if you look at the plans set forth by leadership this number is actually small but it allows the proper decisions to be made with respect to the big names. Everyone likes privacy. The A listers need to be treated even more delicately and this allows for that. In addition most of the stuff put to votes already have been close to $450k annualized so this just allows for us to retain SOLID talent.

1 Like

Really love this thread and appreciate the urgency we all feel to move as fast as possible to capture the opportunities in the market while still being mindful of ROI and accountability to the community.

I’m asking some people in crypto about how they balance this, and will also introduce some new resources we’re getting in place to better operationalize treasury management in this direction proposed, and also provide regular updates to results of past investments proposed by the community


Solid post, thanks Sixy.

My thoughts:
1.) I’d say I’m mostly opposed to the removal of governance voting as far as onboarding creators goes. Although it could be beneficial for short-term onboarding speed, I think too significant a portion of Rally’s core ethos of decentralization and community governance (and eventually being a full DAO) would be undercut with this change.
That said, I’m not opposed to finding other pieces of voting that could be shifted around. I think there’s already been some discussion (was there an official proposal? I can’t remember if that actually happened) around allotting things like day-to-day expenses to the core team w/o voting.
2.) (I partially touch on this in the last part of my 1. reply) Agree, some portion of expenditures could be handled without a vote. Again, I think that was discussed and maybe even voted on at some point, but it all kinda blurs together. Might’ve been one of the discussions that fizzled out.
I think $750k is a bit of a high number, even considering the treasury’s recent exceptional fundraise. I’ll leave the rest of that discussion up to the economists in the chat - excited to read what DFS has to say on this.
3.) (Noting conflict of interest or whatever here, given I’m part of the community/supporting team and paid by treasury), again I’ll leave this up to the economists. Not opposed to the idea entirely. I’m sure everyone knows my belief that the overall market will see a nasty correction Soon™, so it’d be a bit painful to have the entirety of the $RLY portion vested, but not unreasonable. The original intention for mine and Phelp’s contract’s $RLY portion was to be a little extra coin after the USDC portion, not the overbearing $$ it is now; so I can understand the need to vest it in some manner.
On one hand I’d say, because it’s paid at the end of each work month, and because the community can vote to cancel a contract if a hire is underperforming, or - on the flipside - increase hours if the need arises or performance warrants it, I’m not as worried about the vesting. (Wew that was a run-on sentence). But again, not opposed to it if portioned/actioned reasonably and appropriately.
I imagine also, some portion of unseen safety in this regard is the core team’s oversight and interactions with the hires, again lending me to not worry about it all too much.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts @sixmofo!

Taking into account that consumer crypto its taking off now, speed is of the essence. Dapper, Chiliz, Fyooz, Sorare have attracted significant funding. Dapper is rumored having a $250m raise, Sorare booked $50m, not sure how big of a treasury Chiliz and Fyooz have. These companies are moving fast, all over the news and capturing consumer/influential mindshare. Early mover advantage and developer mindshare capture helped Ethereum built its network effects.

It does make sense for the Rally team to have a greater autonomy. Saying that, we need to balance things and be sensitive to regulations.


Looking forward to an update on this! :smiley:

Good thread here @sixmofo. I think we should unpack these into two distinct proposals, even if they share the common thread around Community voting. Let’s keep this thread going on Treasury discussion + pay and start a fresh thread on Creator approvals.

I believe Rally’s new Treasury Admin is likely being onboarded or already onboarded and I expect we will meet them at an upcoming Community call. I’ve seen past voices weigh in on the absurdity of voting to approve very small expenditures for the project as you’ve echoed here with a larger threshold. I hear you loud and clear here! I agree that we want to remove such obstacles that might be hindering Rally business and creator development folks from onboarding and empowering creators. What’s the right dollar number here? How do orgs generally do this and how might Rally as a decentralized org want to proceed?

Once the new Admin has their sea legs here, and the Market Maker Agent has completed the RLY sales on behalf of the community, we should see a treasury in the maybe $33MM range or higher (post-CoinList sales). I really want to look to the expertise of this individual and their insights based on current and projected expenditures to determine a sensible figure here. Just as I couldn’t see a network or community rewards discussion moving forward without @DaddyFatSax, I would like to wait on this new hire to weigh in despite the urgency to get this going! These are my contributions to that discussion.

On to pay. Just as Rally’s innovated with a community on-chain treasury, I see a huge opportunity here to continue to use something like for contractors and hires as Rally has done for advisors and perhaps other hires? Quick shoutout to @bflynn for introducing this to me. If instead of end of contract or recurring rly payments, then with this continuous stream Rally can offer it’s contractors something that few others employ. What I’m getting at here is that we agree in removing obstacles for attracting and retaining the best talent. Constraining our recruitment efforts with a rigid vesting schedule might not help the community in meaningful ways, but could well deter certain talent. I’d opt to give the hiring managers the most flexibility for example, offering different types of vesting, or options between greater bonuses for hitting creator onboarding targets or more conservative but less of a bonus per creator. I don’t know how this is currently structured or how Rally intends to do it moving forward, but we know that Rally needs more folks to onboard Creators and the Community wants to fuel that, not be one of the cars in front of Kevin’s Mack truck.
So, a few more thoughts there! Looking forward to weighing in when/if the team puts forward a proposal on how they intend to approach this.
Playing a bit of catchup on the threads here so let me know what I missed or ping me on discord to discuss more in real time.

Tl;dr Agree on removing votes for small expenditures. Recommend Sablier for continuous vesting. Look to Rally team for their thoughts and invite @delphi Digital, @coopahtroopa, @bflynn to weigh in on best practices they’ve seen in other crypto native projects for contractor/hire vesting schedule, and what might be best for Rally considering our unique (?) creator recruitment needs.



@Grand Great suggestions. It may be worth considering Superfluid Finance over Sablier. Unlike with Sablier, with Superfluid a single account (e.g. the onchain treasury account) can have many open subscriptions. Sablier has every stream be its own instance. Both are great.