PEP-48: Quarterly Reporting through Messari Protocol Services

For those in favour of this proposal, can you give me your thoughts on:

  1. Why would it be better to engage Messari now than in Q4 just before v1’s release?

  2. What will Messari write about? They did a great piece on our DAO, but now what major releases do we have coming that are worth of 5 figure ad spend, pre v1?

  3. Have you bought advertising before? If so, did you negotiate with the vendor at all, or just pay the first number they said?

The points i’m trying to re-emphasise here:

a) buy and use advertising - take a ‘bet’ on it, when the timing is right, not just because an advertiser approached you selling something. Messari will be a great partnership - when we can optimise ROI for our benefit, not their sales figures.

b) negotiate with suppliers. PNI just took a massive haircut to salaries and staff, and now the buyers of this service don’t want to negotiate? This is not just for Messari, but all suppliers to the DAO, we need someone actively negotiating on our behalf, not just signing off the first numbers given to us.


As part of any arrangement for coverage by Messari, the DAO should insist on playing a role in the editing process, including most importantly fact-checking, to ensure that any material that’s published is accurate and mistake free. No one knows Pocket like Pocket people. While Messari writers may be good “journalists,” journalists are not perfect. GRIP would be happy to play this role (no, this is not GRIP creep). It would be a win-win. Messari, of course, would retain full editorial control.


Thanks @Cryptocorn , yes my last post says that I am leaning towards it.

I proposed Q3 but I am fine with Q4 as well if that helps get consensus. I am not OK with Q1/Q2.

If timing is your concern, I have addressed it above. The DAO article was a teaser I think; the scope of their quarterly coverage is much bigger than a blog as far as I understand.

Yes, I have and several times- print and digital. I agree with you and have echoed the same sentiment in my initial posts. I have been doing some digging about advertisement, blockchain analytics costs in this space and I am kinda bowled over by the rates.

Totally agreed!

Agreed here too! I have introduced 3 ideas in the community- A) Active DAO Treasury Management (that includes budgeting and planning), that will force the kind of stand you are proposing ; B) DAO level (may be through PNF) Marketing oversight. PNI marketing is for PNI and they don’t represent all of Pocket. A PNF/DAO representative to work/coordinate with all the vendor/stakeholder level marketing teams, interact with the DAO on marketing ; C) Space and Competitor Research- what are others doing?

Unless we have the above (or similar), we are basically acting blind and reactive. So we need to have the pillars and processes in place first.

Going back to Messari- I 100% lean towards giving Messari a fair chance for 2 quarters, and I am OK with Q3 + Q4 OR Q4 + Q1 24 (we can debate that).

As far as price goes, let me ask @JackPurdy_Messari once more and directly- is there any room for negotiation in your 25k X 2 (50k) offer? Seems like if we can get an attractive initial discount (a BAFO), it will be easier to get the ball rolling and hopefully start a long term partnership.

Comments from @Dermot & @b3n are still welcome. In case you would prefer to be observers and let the community decide, an acknowledgement at least will be great.

1 Like

I believe this deal with Messari will do more good than harm to the Pocket ecosystem. Even though I am confident our community can do its own reports, the reach of such reports is limited. Also, we cannot be in the mindset that we should be doing everything on our own, instead work with entities that can multiply our efforts and reach communities beyond our reach.

Even though the POKT price has fallen, the network has progressed well fundamentally with ‘all-time new highs’. Now I get that info because I am continuously tracking the KPIs and preparing reports every quarter. Believe it wasn’t easy unless I track every ‘Relay Cap’ and without the charts of Currently, an outsider has no way to judge pocket network unless to look at the price action of POKT and conclude - oh this not doing well. And I don’t think anyone will really jump into the rabbit hole of pocket considering the myriad of other web3 projects one has to consider. You need quick and easily comprehensible indicators that go beyond price, that can be easily found in well-reputed web3 research catalogs.

This is where well-written quarterly reports with key KPIs, even including data points that are not extensively covered currently such as latency & no. of applications, will be a benefit for us to show the progress. And such reports have to come out from entities independent of the Pocket ecosystem as externals will trust that more than ones created by the community or foundation. Also, I don’t believe the market will respond well to one of marketing reports (say after the V1 launch). You need to show consistent progress over time to attract good investors, builders, and node runners.

We also have portfolio companies coming to us asking whether it is the right time to start working on Pocket. They find it too difficult to track the governance process and changes. The report done by Messsari on the governance process is a breather here, and so is the overview of all the governance proposals. Also, when Messari covers it, it is a signal to me that it is a reputed project where some real things are happening.

So all in all, I would urge the community to think: Is this beneficial to reach more people? Are we reaching quality readers? Can another provider do better? Or can you as a community reach more people than Messari?

It would have been better if the foundation have a budget for this approved by the DAO. It is a bit unusual to see the pricing discussed here. If I were from Messari, I would never indicate a price, especially a discount, since I am setting precedents for the price of my product in a public forum. So instead of the DAO negotiating, it should be taken over by the directors of the foundation. I believe they can reach what is worth paying - by considering what it costs with another provider & by considering what other projects pay Messari. But it wouldn’t make sense to negotiate here and expect Messari to provide indications of discounts here.


Normally the offering is $100k cash upfront. We recognize market conditions are tight, so we offered quarterly payments instead. Seeing the DAOs preference towards token payments we made that provision, flexed down our normal required premium to accept tokens, added the 6-month termination clause, and even put together a governance analysis free of charge. I’d call that pretty effective negotiating on the DAOs part!

Unfortunately, we have no more room to discount but as I noted above, we’ve really done our best to make the terms as attractive to the DAO as possible.


IF we go forward with this, I tend to agree with the Q3 timing. Assuming the SER (emissions reduction) proposal passes, an Aug/Sep first release will be able to highlight single-digit inflation. Plus even though v1 mainnet will still be months away, testnet will be immanent and we an start building hype around upcoming v1


I think Caeser has brought up some important points around:

DAO Treasury Management
Marketing outside PNI
Competitor Research.

These topics stem from the above, but tangential, I think they need their own space to be more fully explored and tie up with some of the points I’m making above + what Jinx is focusing on with the payment system.

Better understanding a budget + forecasting will allow for a separate marketing budget (that can manage this PEP & others) and make research grants.


Thank you @Rajeevan_Blockwall

Nothing looks unusual to me in crypto/web3; this space is all about breaking norms and traditions. This is a space where even individual salaries are public at times and people get to question those, let alone deals.

I don’t know what is right or wrong yet. The pendulum will swing hard and we shall see where it settles one day, IMO.

The proposal got initiated in forum, which is a public space for all DAO related discourses. And here we are discussing/debating it. It has taken its normal course from its origin.

Yes, agreed and few of us have raised similar needs very recently: representative democracy, payment structures, budgeting, marketing budgets, etc. Please read @Cryptocorn 's last response on this thread, this and this.

The foundation (the DAO) is new, so I believe we will get there slowly but surely.

But at this moment, this is how it is.

Above all- the DAO will always discuss and debate, and at times unusual looking subjects. That really can’t be stopped, irrespective of the structures and titles.

Agreed with everything else.

The sentiment is crawling towards green as I see it, from being majority red in the beginning. The community is fairly aligned as far as the timing is concerned- Q3/Q4 timeframe (will favour Q3 start as a compromise).

My personal stance is-

But I stay sensitive to the remaining dissenting voices.

Will talk to a few members.


Thanks @JackPurdy_Messari ; as we mature as a DAO, such deals & followup negotiations should probably be approached differently in the future.

Before this is put up for vote, can I ask whether you are agreeable to Q3 start? Basically a Q3 + Q4 trial? The feedbacks seem to favour a late start and not in H1. Making that small amendment might help getting consensus.

I would recommend that at least.


Q3 start sounds like much wiser solution. There is not much things to cover till V1 is on testnet and much closer to mainnet release.


We’re happy to have the first report released in Q3. Having a bit more lead time on our end would be helpful as this is a pretty unique network on the data infra side too


Hey @Caesar @Cryptocorn et al

Personally speaking, I think we should start this sooner rather than later, with the aim for the first report to be released by the end of Q2, giving us two reports and some ongoing coverage prior to Q4 when we hope to launch v1 (or finalise its testing at least)

We have several other developments to cover pre-v1, including the testnet at the start of Q3 that we want a lot of excitement for in advance to maximise participation, various bug bounties, help with hiring, new developments in the DAO and so on

Working with Messari provides the opportunity to serve Pocket’s institutional investors, along with high-quality researchers, an easy way to stay up to date with the latest developments in the DAO, as well as periodic updates on v1, protocol sales etc, and the kicker is the deep-dive quarterly reports. I would argue that the interim updates are just as important

I’d be interested in a poll to gauge community sentiment.

(@JackPurdy_Messari please jump in if I have misinterpreted the potential timings at play here)

  • interim reporting now plus first deep dive sometime at end of Q1
  • Interim reporting from start of Q2 plus deep dive end of Q2
  • Interim reporting from start of Q3 plus deep dive end of Q3
  • Interim reporting from start of Q4 plus deep dive end of Q4
  • Interim reporting from start of 2024 plus deep dive end of Q1 2024

0 voters


Thanks for the tag and the poll @Dermot ! I have already shared a plentiful on this thread. Will let the community decide hereafter.

To summarise my thoughts- moving forward we need processes (as suggested above and in other threads) to make such decisions as we mature as a DAO. Those may even allow us to proactively seek such partnerships.

For now I am very excited to see Messari @JackPurdy_Messari cover Pocket, whenever that is.

Thanks again for leading this!


Hey folks, I’ve made the following amendments to the proposal at @JackPurdy_Messari’s request, reflecting the amendments that he agreed to in the discussion above and the fact that the informal poll leaned towards a report at the end of Q2.

1 Like

This proposal is now up for voting. Snapshot

1 Like

So you’ve INCREASED the amount Messari will receive by 5%, which with no lock up they will immediately market dump, as oppose to PNF doing an OTC deal to sell POKT to USD?

What is the point in paying in $POKT if there is no lock up? We are just paying more for Messari to do the sale instead of PNF.

1 Like

I made the amendments that Jack agreed to here in the thread.

Jack lowered the premium to accept POKT (instead of stables) to 5% and as far as I can see in the thread, no-one objected to this.

Note the following:

  • PNF would be operating in the same markets as Messari. We’d be facing the same slippage on CEXs and our own MM + exchange fees. And the POKT OTCs charge 5% to buyers, which just results in OTC running 5% lower asking price. You’re assuming we could save 5% on the swap but there’s no guarantee of that.
  • The first payment would not happen until April 1st, according to the price on that day.

Having PNF do trades as an intermediary to grant payments is unprecedented, though I recognize we’ve just entered a new era for PNF, which is why I’m enquiring with Jack whether he’d accept an either/or deal ($25k in stables OR $26,250 in POKT) and I’m bringing this question up with the other PNF directors.

However, I caveat this with the following observations:

  • The PNF directors have not been hired by the DAO to trade POKT for stables every time a grant recipient wants stables. We should aim to minimize the logistical burden to the directors.
  • For a grant of this size, you’re looking at saving a maximum of ~15k POKT per payment, and that’s assuming no slippage or fees to PNF.
  • Therefore, if the DAO wants this to become an option for this grant and future grants, the DAO should approve a PEP to exchange a lump sum of the DAO’s POKT to stables.

The DAO has until April 1st to take the necessary steps if that’s what the DAO wants PNF to do.


I hope this gets clearly rejected as it currently stands. Messari is cool and all that, but let’s not force it too early. We should revive this conversation in 6 months from now. I’m all for interim reporting from start of Q4 plus deep dive end of Q4, right before V1 is close to mainnet. It will get obvious by then that it’s the best option.


To follow up on this,

Jack has confirmed to me that he’d be happy to accept EITHER $25k in stables OR $26,250 in POKT.

He also advised me that Messari have already arranged with a third-party to accept the POKT on their behalf, who would then pay Messari the stables. In other words, Messari have already arranged for an OTC deal to take place.

As I said above, if the DAO wants to go the route of PNF paying Messari in stables directly on the DAO’s behalf, the DAO should approve a PEP to exchange a lump sum of the DAO’s POKT to stables, so that we don’t have to arrange a swap to stables for every grant of this nature. As I also said above, do note that PNF would be subject to the same slippage/fees on CEXs and the same -5% prices on OTC.

1 Like

Some community members seem to be under the impression that Messari came straight to the DAO, that this is their first offer, and thus we all have a duty as prudent treasury managers to negotiate harder. I think it might be helpful to provide some context on the discussions that have taken place off-forum and a reminder of how the deal has evolved here in the forum.

Messari has been talking to the PNF and PNI teams since November about the potential for them to do more Web3 infra reporting. We sit at the intersection of multiple areas of interest for them: Web3 infra, DePIN, and of course governance. I was on a call with their governance analysts in December. They are excited about our DAO (as you can see in their recent governance report) and they see this as an opportunity to join us on our journey, not just a cash grab.

For these reasons, I believe we should view the Messari relationship as more than an opportunity to build hype for v1. Messari is excited about our DAO, has kickstarted a strong narrative about our DAO’s strengths, and will be able to shine a light on the many significant upgrades that are coming in the first half of this year. Reports about this will be a powerful beacon to attract builders to our ecosystem, which further strengthens our DAO. For those concerned about emerging competitors and the defensibility of our network, community & governance are both excellent moats. If this proposal passes, we would have until the first report to make this DAO the most welcoming place it can be for would-be contributors.

Messari’s enthusiasm for our project is also why PNF/PNI and the DAO have both seen success in negotiating a more favorable deal:

  • They’re accepting quarterly payments, rather than their usual upfront $100k payment. If the markets improve, the hit to the treasury will be lessened.
  • They lowered their usual premium to accept tokens from 10% to 5%. And they’ve arranged an OTC deal so that they’re not dumping on the market.
  • They’ve added a 6-month termination clause, meaning we can get out of the deal and save $50k if we feel we’re not getting ROI from the reports.