PEP-58: RAD2 - RAD Harder

PEP-58: RAD2 - RAD Harder


  • Author(s): @b3n @JackALaing @Ming @jdaugherty on behalf of the entire Pocket Network

  • Recipient(s): PNF will hold and disburse funds on behalf of the authors and the wider community

  • Category: Program

  • Related Instalments: Continuation and expansion of PEP-42 RAD

  • Asking Amount: Equivalent of $20K per month in Pocket, funded for the next 6 months. We will self report monthly and ensure the program is never in negative balance.


This proposal seeks to iterate and extend the PEP-42 RAD program for a further six months. We want to build on the small but meaningful wins of the original program and expand its scope further across the ecosystem.


The original proposal of PEP-42 sought to Reward and Decentralise through the establishment of a bounty program that could catalyse the progressive decentralisation of work across the network.

We think the original program was a success a referenced in the summary here.

This next iteration of the program seeks to do three things:

  1. Extend the reach of RAD as measured by the following metrics:
  • Total number of contributors, number of “concurrent” or “monthly” RAD contributors
  • Contributor growth metric
  • Contributor contribution ratio (i.e. PNI, PNF, Community contributor %)
  1. Further iterate and improve on challenges identified within RAD, as measured by:
  • Payment accuracy (i.e. consistently paid by X date)
  • RAD NPS (Net Promoter Score)
  • Delivery of a Contributor playbook (including relevant process and principles)
  1. Further experiment with the program and position it as an enduring pillar of how Pocket network operates. While harder to define now, this is likely to be measured by:
  • Completed experiments, Documented Learnings

1. Expanding the scope of RAD

The program provided benefits to numerous stakeholders. For example, it increased the velocity of protocol development by stimulating more activity around protocol tasks. We want to expand the program to increase velocity in other relevant areas. The exact areas in which we would increase velocity will be specified in alignment with DAO priorities originating under the DNA program, but areas we anticipate we can increase velocity are:

  • Iteration on governance workflows, such as the Trophy system or forum or proposal upgrades
  • Support for contribution programs like RAD, IDEAS, GROW or other contributor oriented programs
  • Community management and engagement, such as community calls or events or moderation

The program will continue to be stewarded by PNF but the scope of what could be bountied would be expanded further

2. Improving the effectiveness of RAD

The original program had numerous successes but was not without some challenges and bottlenecks. We want to continue to improve and embed the RAD program in the operations of the DAO and our builder teams. Areas in particular that we want to improve include:

  • The regular scheduling and release of payments
  • The active and broad marketing of bounties to those outside our community
  • The speed of contributor onboarding and the pace at which work can be reviewed

The program aims to further improve on these areas in the next cycle.

3. Further experimentation and learning via RAD

Like the original RAD program, we want to continue to iterate and experiment through the program to find novel ways of increasing its impact. For the next cycle of RAD we want to include the following experiments:

  • Offering bounties for work more broadly in the ecosystem, not just via PNI but via PNF and potentially via builder teams working on DAO priorities
  • Experimenting with a “roles” structure that would allow bounties to be “permissionless” - that is, trusted contributors being able to self assign bounties
  • Exploring the idea of “real time” payments once work has been reviewed, subject to further progress in the area of a potential ERC20 token)

Our desire to increase the reach, effectiveness and velocity of RAD in this next iteration cycle and ultimately to increase the impact it provides to the whole network is how we landed on the name. RAD 2 is about leaning into everything RAD has done and to RAD Harder.

If we can deliver on the above we think that we will all look back in 6 months and see a network that has a smarter, more decentralised, more engaged and larger pool of contributors to help power the network.


The budget being requested is a cap of the equivalent of $20K of Pocket each month for 6 months. At today’s price this is approximately 363,000 POKT

The rationale for this change of budget structuring is to allow consistency in how we manage this budget in the face of fluctuations of POKT price and other input factors for how much work is delivered through RAD, and balancing participation of ongoing bounty contributors.

Iterating on the previous pricing and sizing system, we will use the “Task Points” in Dework as a proxy for $USD equivalent across all bounties, and will roughly assign a price based on:

  • Small bounties - $50-250
  • Medium Bounties - $250-1500
  • Large Bounties - $1500+

While the above is our preferred budgetary approach, we understand the DAO may request an alternative top line budget number for certainty of program cost, in which case we would request a budget total of 363,000 POKT as outlined above.

Dissenting Opinions

This proposal is not specific enough: We believe this outlines the nature and directionality of the program without confining it in a way which would make it unresponsive to changing events. Similar liberties were requested in the original program and we think we have demonstrated an accountability towards the work that will allow this to continue.

We don’t believe there are any other dissenting opinions given the positive progress made towards objectives in the original RAD program.


Deliverables for this program will be:

  • Monthly report on bounties delivered
  • Full accounting for use of the budget
  • A quarterly summary against objectives and impact delivered

We are thankful for the support you provided in the original RAD PEP, and look forward to working beside you as we RAD harder together.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


I understand this is controversial and I can preempt the very obvious counter arguments, yet I want to raise it to PNF and to the DAO.

Have you considered not dollarising the economy within the DAO?

In other words use $POKT as the currency & $POKT alone ($POKT denominated) for DAO expenses.

Because what is happening today is that the DAO is earning in a highly volatile & a weaker currency (since $POKT was $1), rather extremely weak, with a time-uncertainty of recovering the $1 parity.

And spending (denominating) in dollars.

Imagine a national treasury or a company treasury being managed like that?

The treasury perhaps get bankrupted soon or at best it leads to gory complications in forecasting & budgeting.

.06 was the figure I saw that people were speculating $POKT to hover around. I vaguely remember that figure was used in official calculations as well (I could be wrong there). Well, that didn’t happen. This is a topic close to my heart but I shall not digress.

The probability of further drops in price is non-zero. No one really knows where it stops and when it recovers given the very complex macro (liquidity primarily) scenarios sending all kinds of mixed signals. There could be fake outs on the way. Moreover $POKT has its own issues.

That just creates huge problems IMO in matching income/expenses.

All large companies are either already on diet or about to.

Austerity may be needed here too as an insurance for survival.

And that need not be by cutting down initiatives but by moving to earning and spending (denominating) in home currency.

Thankfully the supply of which is predictable.

Cc @Dermot , as you handle the treasury if I am not mistaken.


I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial to reconsider treasury management in light of Pocket’s current price action. We actually plan to share some further guidance and principles around this soon to try to bring more consistency to how work is priced and POKT 7/30 day averages are calculated, as just one example. I do think floating austerity without clarity on where we are prioritising our resources is the wrong sequencing. We don’t need to limit spending… we need to make sure we have clarity on what we are prioritising and how we are investing in things that drive long term and sustainable change to the current price trend.

All that said, RAD is a program which at its core is expressly designed around pay-for-service. Bounty hunters already take on the risk of uncertain future work prospects and receive none of the benefits of recurring work or employment. So their nature is highly dollarised whether we like it or not. I sense that pushing further insecurity to bounty hunters will either undermine the program objectives, lead to demands for more security, or see them simply move on to other projects who can provide that type of certainty.

And of course, it’s up to the DAO how it wants to fund the RAD program… that’s why we provided the option of a POKT denominated budget in the budget section above


Can you please clarify what gets covered under the proposal ask amount and what would require additional reimbursement an/or is funded out of a different bucket. All of RAD, IDEAS. POPs, RPGs, Sockets etc are covered within $20k/mo? Is $20k/mo sufficient?


Thanks for the question as I can see how the above might cause confusion.

So far, RAD has primarily supported protocol and developer bounties. One key aim of RAD2 is to diversify where bounties are used across the wider community. For example, PNF would like to bounty out support for initiatives on our roadmap, and the above are example of that. But these are just illustrative examples and the scope could include many other items, such as further collaborations between PNF and DAO contributors on marketing or economics or the work around establishment of community hubs. We are very open to hear from the community where they might see opportunities to further use bounties to achieve our broader aims and if anyone has ideas on that I’d love them to share here or reach out to me directly

Regarding POPs, RPGs and Sockets specifically, these are currently PNF funded programs and none of the RAD budget would be directed to these programs or IDEAS directly. But as we scale these programs our intention has been to prepare to cede these to the DAO/community, and I can see operational support work being bountied to contributors to help on that transition.

Hope this clarifies.


Thanks @b3n .

Am sure many believe what I raised is off-topic. I don’t, as I need a context and a trigger point. Plus am not a fan of new-proposal-farming unless absolutely needed. But I will be respectful and keep this short.

Reconsidering treasury management is not controversial but the details beyond in my post are. It’s controversial even in my head, let alone in the outside.

Plz reread how my I defined ‘austerity’ in this case. It would be odd to push for marketing on one thread and then push back on RAD on the other. What I raised is much bigger than RAD or anything. As I said, I needed a context and a trigger point and hence I chose this post/thread.

a) Income/Expense mismatch (if any) being catastrophic is real (just as asset/liability mismatch)

b) In this case aggravated by currency mismatch- earn in an extremely weak, free falling one VS expenses denominated in a stable/stronger currency. Wouldn’t have been a problem if the former was stronger or at least reasonably stable

c) Uncertainty in 2023/2024 is real (uncertainty means uncertainty, not a doom call)

d) Top companies (experts & experienced) adjusting to #c is real

e) Atrocious $POKT price is real (along with #c)- biggest concern!

How this DAO reacts- will leave it to PNF’s capable hands.

Tough conditions may warrant changes for survival.

Am here just to alert.

Thank you.


This proposal is now up for voting. Snapshot


This proposal passed with 19 yays and 1 nay. Snapshot