PEP - 47 New LPs (Loyalty Program) via Airdrop



The New LPs grant will reward users of the Pocket Network and facilitate growth of the network. This will be done by airdropping a proportional amount of POKT tokens to Pocket Portal users who have demonstrated loyal usage of the service. This is different from other loyalty programs and leans into one of Pocket’s competitive advantages - our native token. This will effectively grows “skin in the game” for Pocket users who become self-interested in Pocket Network’s longevity and success.

Background Info

One of Pocket’s unique features is that it is a 2 sided marketplace between node runner and endpoint users (AKA dApp Developers, Web3 Devs, Demand side of the marketplace, etc). However, close to 2.5 years after mainnet launch and the formation of the DAO, the current state has:

  • Stakeholder concentration : DAO membership largely consists of NodeRunners, employees of Pocket Network Incorporated, and Investors
  • Limited token utility : Direct Staking Mechanisms for Node Runners, but not Endpoint Users, and
  • Technical Expertise : Node Runner Office Hours is evidence of a vibrant and deeply informed constituency of members that largely align with the Supply side of the marketplace

There are many reasons why the Pocket DAO has historically been based around the Node Runner experience. Furthermore, It should also not slow down investing in this important group of community members; nailing down the supply side of a marketplace was critical at the start of Pocket Network.

This proposal aims to be inclusive of the demand side. Investing in user acquisition via airdrop strengthens the value proposition for interested Endpoint Users who want to use our API service. In simpler terms, the New LPs proposal brings new users who create an account on the portal and send paid relays to the network. This boost brings benefits to both sides of the marketplace as well as the diversity to the DAO constituency.

This is a compelling time during Pocket’s history to boost Endpoint Users given

  • recent developments of a new Portal which includes Pay as you Go payment model,
  • the possible integration of a Software as a Service (Saas) payment model where Portal users have the opportunity to purchase relays but receive no POKT to stake, and
  • growth of top tier users such as Aave, Status, and Frax.

These recent developments bode well for portal usage, whether provided by both internal and external portal operators.

Additionally, one of the next big unlocks for the Pocket Network protocol and Pocket Portal is Self-Staking. This will bring additional utility to the POKT token and will get Endpoint Users closer to having an on-chain app stake. While the specific details about Self-Staking are outside of the purview of this proposal, it is still worthwhile to prepare for the feature. PEP 47 New LPs is a proposal that will be meant to increase the Portal usage in anticipation of Self-Staking.

Note: ”Endpoint Users” is a relatively new term in the Pocket Community. It is meant to be inclusive of both Web3 developers (dApps developers, Blockchain Foundations, etc) and users (i.e. Wallet holders, Play-to-Earn gamers, DeFi traders, etc ). A portal user can be both technical or non-technical and I think it is useful to expand our definition to go beyond the typical language of just App Developers.


There are multiple reasons why we would want our Endpoint Users to hold POKT. We aim to

  • drum up hype for new user acquisition
  • encourage growth by attracting existing users to send more traffic to Pocket
  • lean into our unique token model by giving users upside that other service providers don’t offer

At present, Endpoint Users who pay in monthly fiat installments do not receive POKT and don’t have “skin in the game” as it relates to our ecosystem. At present they have to wait till their 24 month period is over to receive their POKT to stake. If self-staking were available in the portal right now, Endpoint Users would benefit from the upward motion of POKT token price and be incentivized to spread a positive narrative about Pocket Network. However, given that Portal users receive their POKT after 24 months, they actually have little short-medium incentive to shill (or promote) Pocket Network.

Under the New LPs program,existing Portal Endpoint Users would be incentivized to drive more of their traffic to our network to increase the odds of their airdrop. Additionally, interested Portal Endpoint Users would have another reason to sign up and start sending traffic to our network.


We propose an airdrop for initial users of the new Portal Portal. These “New LPs” would be able to receive POKT tokens and grow “skin in the game” with a vested interest in POKT tokenomics overall.

Intended recipients would receive airdropped POKT before self-staking gets shipped. Potential recipients would be:

  • Current Pay as you Go (PAYG) users - those who pay on a monthly basis for a period of time before they receive POKT worth their full stake- (the 24 month period referred to throughout the doc).
  • Future PAYG users - users who sign up for PAYG between now and when self-staking is shipped
  • Future Software as a Service (SaaS) users - those who may use the Portal service but pay for it at a discounted rate, but receive no POKT to stake. Note: this payment plan has not been fully specced out yet and there is no definitive timeline on this feature.

Airdrop recipients would only be for paid relays users and would exclude users who only use Free Tier relays.

Let’s see an example

We propose airdropping an additional ~5% of the total PAYG payments to users right before Self-staking goes live. This would be for users who are in good standing and have paid fiat to Pocket Network for portal use. The maximum amount for a pool of airdropped tokens would be 4mn POKT.

Using basic relay math, PNI would distribute POKT tokens to the first 1,000 users (Pay as you Go endpoint users in the Pocket Portal, to be specific) that have been in good standing and have paid out fiat. Assuming they are all on track to pay for a full 24 months (meaning no invoices are not collected, and that no users dropped out of this period), and the average usage is 1.25 mn daily average relays - they would pay for $5.4 mn in USD that gets distributed to the Pocket Tokenomics (see PUP-23 Stairway to Sustainable Economics) over the term.

User Revenue
Amount of token airdrop recipients 1000
Average amount of daily relays (post free tier) 1.0M
Total amount of paid relay pool 1.0B
Price per relay $0.00000746
# of days per month 30.34
# of months that PAYG lasts 24
Value of USD that airdrop recipients pay $5,429,160.96


Using these same figures, all of these users would receive 90.5 mn POKT rewards starting as soon as October 1, 2024 (24 months after the first portal users signed onto the portal) and forward.

User POKT earned stake*
POKT received by users 90.5M
* assuming all users pay for full 24 month term with 0% customer loss

This above amount of POKT token represents an app stake that will start to be released to PAYG users.

In the interim, I think we should create hype among Endpoint Users - both existing and new. As a result I suggest we airdrop tokens to the first 1000 paying users of the Pocket Portal right before self-staking goes live.

Airdrop details
Amount of token airdrop pool 4.0M
Mean amount of user received (POKT) 4.0K
% of Airdropped token to Fully Paid for POKT 4.42%
Current POKT token price $0.06
$ amount of mean recipient received $240.00
$ current amount of token airdrop pool $240,000.00

The above table illustrates what a full disbursement of the airdrop would be. Assuming that the Endpoint Users paid the full amount over time, the amount airdrop recipients would receive is 4.42% of what they paid over time. If that assumption is false and users do not pay for the full 24 months, they don’t receive their App stake, and those POKT aren’t not in circulation (as an aside, this would actually be better for the POKT tokenomics).

Why airdrop in this fashion?

This is a mechanism for Pocket DAO to do the following:

  • Diversify its constituency to Endpoint users:
    • This airdrop would reward endpoint users that have been paying into the protocol and are incentivized to keep paying their portal fee to get their original POKT stake. This airdrop gives them tokens that effectively gives them skin in the game to see Pocket grow (and the token to appreciate). Bringing in this new and different community member persona to Pocket would be a forcing function for us to think, govern, and build more broadly.
  • Bring new Endpoint users to the Pocket Ecosystem
    • Airdrops are very useful hype generators and marketing tools. As an example, I posit that Poktopus token giveaways were one of the best marketing campaigns that Pocket Network ever saw and brought widespread appeal of tech enthusiasts to the project. However, during that time much of the POKT that was procured was turned into Pocket Node stakes which may have contributed to the overprovisioning of the network.
    • In this New LPs Airdrop scenario, the airdrop recipients have the ability to stake apps or nodes. The former has a good impact to make sure that apps self-staking takes effect. Even the latter at this point would make sense as recipients would have stake nodes (presumably with the current Node Runners or Pool Operators) and would additional financial incentive to spread the mission of Pocket Network
  • Use a portion of coffers towards marketing
    • Airdrops (and Loyalty Programs) are a form of paid marketing. This would be a good opportunity for Pocket DAO to start spending its treasury on something that would directly give a boost to the user adoption of Pocket. This proposal is an attempt to use a fraction of the treasury to spread POKT to a broader source of builders and fund user acquisition that benefits all in the ecosystem.

Technical considerations

How did you end up with these numbers?

These numbers are measured to be palatable to the DAO voting body and not require too much operational lift. We could certainly have different numbers for the DAO ask, or the amount of airdrop recipients; I’d get behind any forks of this proposal with different #s.

However, 1k users with a goal of 1bn relays seems like a reasonable start with an opportunity to amend this proposal for more recipients or rewards at a later date. To be abundantly clear, to be eligible for the airdrop for New LPs program, the Endpoint Users would have to create an account and send paid relays before Self-Staking is live. Additionally, if they are the 1001th Endpoint User sending paid relays, they would not be eligible for this New LPs airdrop.

If the DAO wants to send more airdropped tokens or adjust the amount of recipients at a later date, it would have to be in a different proposal but it is definitely possible and is up to the DAO.

Does the DAO have to pay out these tokens now?


The amount for the airdrop will matter based on PAYG user count (up to 1k users) in the weeks before PNI expects to ship Portal Self-staking. At that point, PNI will ask Pocket DAO to transfer the tokens so they can be doled out to Portal users. Pocket DAO will hold onto the tokens in the interim.

Why the 4mn proposal amount? Why reward 1k users? Why not more? Less?

The proposal amount is fairly arbitrary. If anyone thinks the proposal amount should be more than 4mn POKT tokens, I will help you fork this proposal and put forth a better number. If anyone wants the airdrop to apply to 100k users, I can get behind that too.

The rationale for this number came from aiming to have the airdrop amount be ~5% what the Lifetime Value of an Endpoint user would be. These token ask and amount of recipient numbers are the output of that target. This 5% could be adjusted upwards too if one feels like the airdrop pool should dole out more.

How will airdropped tokens be distributed?

Paid relays by users will be aggregated into a general pool. Assuming all those relays have been paid and the users are in good standing, they will earn their proportion of the airdrop.

As an illustration as for how this aggregates over time see here:


Assuming all the users send the same amount of average daily paid relays, User #1 would receive the most airdropped tokens because they have accumulated the most amount of relays over time. User #3 would accumulate the least amount of airdropped tokens.

From another point of view, here is an illustration of how this adds us based on different usage:

Assuming all the users starting sending relays the same day and are all in good standing, User #4 would receive more airdropped tokens because they have accumulated the most amount of relays over time. User #6 would accumulate less airdropped tokens.

This illustrations are fairly simple but showcases that we are rewarding Endpoint Users that are:

  • Paying for Relays rather than just using Free Tier
  • Using our service sooner rather than later
  • Sending more paid traffic rather than less

Whilst a bit simplistic, the model is for a simple reward of POKT tokens to our earliest and dedicated users.


This proposal is largely a response from Community Members of how the DAO can boost strap growth. I think this is a fairly low-risk, low-lift way to do so. Pocket Network signing up new Endpoint Users through the Portal everyday and we want to build on this momentum. The New LPs Airdrop is meant to build up hype and give Web3 buidlers, crypto wallet users, and dApps developers even more incentive to start using our product now.

Dissenting Opinions

Airdrops are scams and we shouldn’t go down that path.

Every voter and voice is entitled to their opinion. I’ve observed that Web3 projects (Ens, UniSwap, DyDx, etc) with real credibility have had some type of airdrop for their early adopters. I think this is a crypto-native model for customer acquisition and one of the most direct ways for Pocket DAO to diversify funds.

Won’t spammers just try and game our network by sending hollow traffic to us to become eligible?

If they are paying for the traffic in FIAT, and PNI is turning this paid traffic into pocket tokenomics, then it would be legit traffic and we welcome it.

However, it is a good point and each of these distribution mechanisms will have individuals who try to game it. WIth this point in mind, we will have to be airtight in our requirements and make sure that all the traffic that counts as valid has paid invoices. This would counter the spammy nature of some participants given that they would have to pay real fiat to participate.

What if we get less than 1k portal users or fall below the average paid users suggested? Do we still have to pay out the whole airdrop amount?


If the Pocket Portal paying user count is below 1k (or any other number that a proposal agrees upon) and less than 1bn paid relays gets generated, then the whole Airdrop pool doesn’t get distributed.

The total airdrop amount is proportional to the amount of users and paid relays they bring in. To reiterate, if the cap isn’t reached, the full amount isn’t airdropped.

Why are we giving additional tokens to users? Pay as you Go (PAYG) gives Endpoint Users tokens to begin with.

Under the current portal construct, it would take as early as Oct 2024 for Endpoint Users to start receiving POKT for their app stakes. The airdrop amounts to ~5% of the total expected value of what they would pay us and so this is an investment to essentially “pull forward” the user acquisition and get these users with more vested interest in Pocket’s longevity and success. One of the goals is to diversity POKT token holders to more Endpoint Users so they could spread Pocket’s mission by word of mouth.

Additionally, PAYG Endpoint Users are not the only Users that will interact with the Pocket Portal. Assuming we integrate SaaS Endpoint Users and self-stakers, PAYG will only be a fraction of our user base.

Aren’t we just sending POKT to people who use the free tier?

No. The airdrop is only for recipients who are consuming paid relays beyond the 250k daily average mark.

If a user only uses our free tier, they would never get an airdrop.

This current PAYG payment model doesn’t make sense and so should we airdrop to these users?

PAYG was never intended to be the sole way for Endpoint Users to purchase app stakes. While imperfect, it was a good first step to get revenue to POKT tokenomics sooner. However, this is all out of scope for this Airdrop proposal.

The goal of the New LPs Airdrop is to reward early adopters of the Pocket Network endpoints. Right now, the only paying users who are using the Portal product are PAYG Users. More payment methods for Portal Users will be available soon and they too will be eligible for the Airdrop.

PAYG is not the focus of this proposal; growth of Pocket Endpoint Users is the focus.

What about the current Portal revenue generation and POKT staking mechanism? Why are we airdropping tokens to portal users we know nothing about?

I think it is important to separate the concerns.

As it relates to the Product: The first iteration Portal Monetization (or Project Pokemon) was launched 2 months ago. The revenue generation being converted to POKT tokenomics is currently being processed. PNI is still iterating on how to make this product more robust and bring in revenue.

As it relates to Growth: this is a unique opportunity to drum up demand for Pocket to new users. I argue this is a relatively low price tag to give more incentive to use Pocket Network endpoints. Part of growth means drawing attention to and offering unique opportunities for revenue generating users.

If we wait till the product is in a perfect state to offer unique user acquisition campaigns like this, I fear we may miss an important opportunity to grow. To be frank - we can’t let perfection be the enemy of good.

Won’t Airdrop recipients just dump these tokens onto the market?

This is a risk. However, historical airdrops have seen both price appreciation and depreciation after airdrops based on timeline.

My counter to this argument is that this airdrop:

  • won’t happen for a couple of months
  • will be capped at the amount of this proposal ask (4mn) which is hardly a dent to the current supply of tokens
    • There is also a chance that not all 4mn POKT tokens will be distributed given the rigorous criterion (Recipients would have to be paying users in the interim)
  • Tokens will have a good bring savings via stake a portion of their endpoint traffic, or earn a return via staking nodes (this also bring business to the current service providers)
  • Some % of recipients will become POKT token holders given the value they already receive from being Pocket Portal users

# Who will the recipients be? I don’t feel comfortable giving enterprises to POKT. Or the same with individuals.

The Pocket Portal was built for individuals and small businesses. These personas would be the target audience for the airdrop.

If any larger customers want to go straight to the Pocket Portal, it is available to them and they could also be eligible for an airdrop. However, we anticipate that the airdrop would be more for a “word-of-mouth” effect and be going to drum up lower volume Endpoint Users.

How would an Airdrop work in a multi-Portal world where portal operators are competing for users?

It wouldn’t. This airdrop would be completed well before Portals are open sourced. Additionally, this boost in Portal Network relays would only bolster a total user base for portals to eventually compete for. I am approaching it with a “Rising tide lifts all boats” mentality.

Why not just do the airdrop tomorrow? Why wait till self-staking?

The intuition is 2 fold -

  1. we want to have a user adoption window that leads to word-of-mouth growth
  2. it makes sense to have the users airdrop coincide with some utility of the token. I believe that when self-staking is available in the portal that this will be another great utility for the POKT token. It will reinforce the user behavior of sending more traffic to the network, and start to strengthen the positive feedback loop.

Why doesn’t Pocket Network Incorporated (PNI) just fund this?

Legally speaking, it is more “above water” that a non-US registered entity funds airdrops. PNI is subject to more regulatory scrutiny given that securities laws on digital assets are not complete. Pocket Network Foundation is able to move more swiftly here and allow Pocket DAO voters to have more direct impact on user acquisition. Having PNI fund this airdrop would drag out the process and add risk to the proposal. Full disclaimer: I am not a securities lawyer and I have no expertise on this topic.

What is with the name? This doesn’t sound like a typical Loyalty Program.

The name is a play on the traditional business term “Limited Partner” (LP). They have vested interest in the outcome of the business and are key stakeholders in growth. Here the airdrop recipients would effectively have similar interests, and become “New LPs”.

This airdrop is not really a typical Loyalty Program. However it is meant to reward Portal Users who have been loyal to Pocket Network and paid their invoices.

Airdrops are still scams and I don’t like them.

If you still think all airdrops are scams, then there is probably not too much I can respond to. There have been successful ones as well as scammy ones. I argue that ours will be in the former camp and crafted with true community in mind via the DAO proposal process.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


Thanks @RichCL for taking the time to put this together. Play on words, notwithstanding, it probably would be less confusing to find a different acronym than LPs, as that is used pretty universally across the cryptosphere for liquidity providers.

Not sure how I feel about this proposal. Feels somewhat “gimmicky” on first read… and I have @Vitality’s PoV ringing in my head about paying customers just wanting simplicity and good upfront price points, not complexity that they have to spend time trying to wrap their mind around.

I suppose it comes down to who the target paying client is. Vitality’s view is that ultimately the success of Pocket Network rises or falls with enterprise-level clients. This paints a picture that small businesses and niche developers are the key to Pocket’s success. Which is it?

What I wonder is the following: is two-fold: is there any overlap between paying users (exceed the usage level of the free tier) and users to whom this airdrop would appeal. To me it would seem that the group to whom this would appeal is more in the free tier, but they are excluded. Second, if there is appeal within the category of paying users, would it be likely to cause such users to hype Pocket, or would they just fold the airdrop into their projection of net expenditure to secure RPC service with nothing on the word-of-mouth or hype side to show for it.

Last, you seemed in general agreement with Vitality’s recommendation to DAO to get out of PNI’s business and stop trying to dictate to PNI how it sells service. Would this be a step in the wrong direction and continue an enmeshment between DAO and PNI in selling service?

These are my first thoughts. Sorry they are more on the “negative side.” I’ll give it more consideration in the coming days


Not negative at all. Very constructive.

I suppose it comes down to who the target paying client is. Vitality’s view is that ultimately the success of Pocket Network rises or falls with enterprise-level clients. This paints a picture that small businesses and niche developers are the key to Pocket’s success.

The key to success is to have a diversified business with many product lines. The Pocket Portal (soon to be many different Portals) will play a part in the growth of pocket. RN, the portal is the most difficult part for Community Members to really contribute to until it is open-sourced.

I think Enterprise (what I call Direct Sales and eventually will get to Enterprise level) is largely Endpoint Users using us for more than 10mn daily relays at once. However it is manual and an airdrop would be weird wrinkle in our agreements. Note: a portal user could exceed that 10mn and be eligible for the airdrop and we welcome that. Portal growth is largely self-service which is great and scalable for us all. Any growth in the Portal doesn’t cannibalize meaningful growth in Direct Sales. I think the same for this proposal.

I am not sure if Portal will be 1% or 10% or >50% of overall growth and revenue, but the goal is to can increase the # within reason.

is there any overlap between paying users (exceed the usage level of the free tier) and users to whom this airdrop would appeal. To me it would seem that the group to whom this would appeal is more in the free tier, but they are excluded.

IMO I think an airdrop to free tier users is too generous. Seems like kind of a free lunch. However, if the DAO voters want them included, let’s include them. It is definitely more aggressive and give POKT to people to haven’t used paid relays. I kind of leave that the commenters and if voters want them included, we can amend this proposal. Again this is my opinion, and so I won’t be a blocker.

Last, you seemed in general agreement with Vitality’s recommendation to DAO to get out of PNI’s business and stop trying to dictate to PNI how it sells service. Would this be a step in the wrong direction and continue an enmeshment between DAO and PNI in selling service?

Here I think this is a little bit of mincing words.

The DAO funding an airdrop is one of the most direct ways to add a “boost” to hype, user acquisition, and growth. PNI really wouldn’t be hands on here. DAO can set the terms and no one from PNI can object. In my mind, this is the best way for both sides to contribute without dictating how each other “sells the service”.

I don’t know if I subscribe to the idea that DAO to get out of PNI business. I do subscribe that both entities push growth but don’t step over each others toes, if that makes sense.

To your point though @msa6867 - I did agree with Vitality’s comment. To be more precise, I think it was in regards to the recurring conversations on different price points. But that is a fair callout.

1 Like

I was fortunate enough to be included in the early writing of this proposal, and wanted to wait to see other community members thoughts and ideas before adding some of my own.

  1. As others have also brought up, I am not the biggest fan of the PAYG model. I’ve written a proposal currently going through GRIP and discussed with several of the members here that I think PAYG is too complicated for retail (enterprise may be different) and that I believe low volume users would prefer a SaaS model. This point is some what tangential to PEP-47, but brings up the question of how much do we want to encourage PAYG compared to having PAYG v0 focus on enterprise, and wait for SaaS introduction with GaaS/multi-portal in v1?

I appreciate that Rich acknowledges some members hesitancy against PAYG in the proposal and the long term Pocket sales vision has always been to have a multi-tiered PAYG/SaaS/Bring your own POKT tiered environment.

  1. If the community does decide to go ahead with the airdrops, I think it would be worth carving out a certain amount of the budget to give to ‘free’ users to gather data. Getting retail dapp developers to learn to use Pocket is a worthy endeavour, and hopefully leads to user conversion.

  2. I feel 4M POKT for ~970 clients is a lot when we don’t have a huge amount of data/metrics to judge the success of the program and it’s ROI. I’d be in favour of either lowering the requested amount to an initial period, or having a stop gap after possibly 500k - 1M POKT where the community receives a review, attempts to analyse what the ROI is (would be better to define what success/failure looks like before starting the program), and then can OK further budget.
    Similar to how our Reddit marketing budget was for an initial 3 month period and modest pay request, so to I think new programs should be set up such that we have an initial phase to gather data, and if successful even larger amounts of Pocket can be awarded.

Apologies if that is overly negative - I strongly believe we should try a wide variety of incentives and programs to increase demand/sales, including the above proposal, but not commit large budgets/time/resources to programs until we can show success, at which point funding can be massively dialed up.

1 Like

Why not both?

Pay as you Go isn’t going anywhere and it is growth channel. SaaS in portal will be another growth channel. The goal is to eventually give as many options to users as is feasible. Waiting till multiple quarters for SaaS in portal would be waiting around for product to rejigger their roadmap when we have an Ops growth hack that we could use in the interim. When it comes to boosting growth, the sooner the better. We have multiple arrows in our quiver.

I suppose we can already do that now regardless of whether we do the airdrop or not. AFAIK, there are no active plans to strip free tier away from Portal.

Just want to clarify that 4M pokt is the most we would pay out.

If we get ~485 clients (with proposal assumptions), we would only payout 2M pokt. Less users even less POKT. However, airdrops would not go out to 971st client and so on. In that way it is hard capped.

I could get behind this if a community member wrote an alternate proposal with an alternate payout. It would not be ideal to lower the amount, but we should promote growth at any point we can afford it.

IMO it becomes an operational onus for such a small amount of POKT to be paused, analyzed on, and then reiterated on. Remember that this airdrop isn’t for free usage - this payout is reciprocal for PAID usage. If anything we should be maximizing this amount, not minimizing it.

Plus, the the less POKT in the airdrop means it muffles the hype.

That being said, if voters express a desire for this proposal structure with a different proposal amount, I as a voter would back growth in most any shape or form.

I am amenable to this approach in general so long as it doesn’t introduce analysis paralysis.

However, as it relates to this Airdrop, we don’t have any down side risk. If it doesn’t work at drumming up hype and it doesn’t move the dial for paid users, Pocket DAO doesn’t pay out.

As far as the idea of staggering multiple airdrops, this introduces game theory and it may incentivize users to hold off on signing up for paid relays till future periods when future airdrops may be more advantageous. In general, - IMO - queuing up multiple potential airdrops is problematic. I recommend we steer clear of this complexity.

I agree that no one measure will be a panacea. This is just another arrow in our quiver and this is a compelling time to shoot it. Airdrops is one of a wide variety.

As usual, I will point out that your comments hardly come across as negative. It is extremely constructive and organized. Well thought out replies like this are always a value add.


Thanks for taking the time to reply to my thoughts Rich.

  • would it be worth setting some low-bar KPIs for this program, which auto-unlock the funding in two stages?

So X POKT (500k/1M) has to produce Y results in Z time for the remaining 3M POKT to be released?

  • It would be auto-approved, so no ‘analysis paralysis’ or more DAO votes etc.
  • an agreed upon low-bar so that the program can show a positive ROI and lead members to be confident that the POKT is being spent positively.
  • appreciate that there is a counter argument that this may be unnecessary as the budget is the limit of POKT to be spent and would only be spent if the Sales team maxed out new joiners to the program, which should be positive ROI.

However, at least an initial review after stage 1 of gathering real world data and proving that there’s a positive ROI would be beneficial IMO. It should be structured as such that the proposal should continue unless a break clause is triggered. I.e. Auto-positive as oppose to manual need for continuation.

1 Like

A couple questions and comments:

  1. How will the pocket be deployed? Is PNI collecting the user’s Pocket address?
  2. To me, it makes more sense to wait until self app staking is completed and the user is able to actually self stake. The whole idea premise of this proposal is that users who use POKT service should be rewarded and incentivized to keep using the token instead of fiat. I can assume they already know a little about POKT - so it would be better if the tokens were staked on their behalf and locked into the normal staking period. They would see that some tokens were staked as a reward, and they can upstake or stake more on their own needs.

This removes the risk of

and incentivizes the purpose

a lot more.