Drive AI-centric Livepeer Brand
Purpose Livepeer needs a new meme (realtime? realtime AI?). With Livepeer’s new focus on realtime AI & video, the creation and focus of the Daydream community and product, and the development of new gateway services (Streamplace, Frameworks, Embody), each part of the Livepeer story needs to be coherently weaved together. The market for video is exploding as it merges with AI. This opportunity is to lead a team dedicated to advancing the Livepeer brand, connecting the network product, token and ecosystem. As both a compute network and specialised video infrastructure, Livepeer needs to communicate its value propositions to new customers and investors. Outcome By the end of this 6-month period, Livepeer will have formed its own category and positioned itself as a market leader in providing specialised infrastructure for real-time video and AI. It will have identified its market and have the foundations of a go to market, which can be taken forward in collaboration with other teams. Some key metrics include: Number of inbound, qualified developer leads Social followers and/or social engagement Discord members increase Discord member engagement
Admin Team 5 days ago
Coming Soon
Drive AI-centric Livepeer Brand
Purpose Livepeer needs a new meme (realtime? realtime AI?). With Livepeer’s new focus on realtime AI & video, the creation and focus of the Daydream community and product, and the development of new gateway services (Streamplace, Frameworks, Embody), each part of the Livepeer story needs to be coherently weaved together. The market for video is exploding as it merges with AI. This opportunity is to lead a team dedicated to advancing the Livepeer brand, connecting the network product, token and ecosystem. As both a compute network and specialised video infrastructure, Livepeer needs to communicate its value propositions to new customers and investors. Outcome By the end of this 6-month period, Livepeer will have formed its own category and positioned itself as a market leader in providing specialised infrastructure for real-time video and AI. It will have identified its market and have the foundations of a go to market, which can be taken forward in collaboration with other teams. Some key metrics include: Number of inbound, qualified developer leads Social followers and/or social engagement Discord members increase Discord member engagement
Admin Team 5 days ago
Coming Soon
Tackling Free Riding & Participation Quality
Objective: Define what "quality participation" means for delegators and orchestrators, how it's measured, and how emissions/treasury incentives can be tuned to reward it. Problem Statement: Today emissions reward participation without distinguishing quality. Passive stake, dormant delegators, and underperforming orchestrators all receive the same rewards as active, high-value participants. This is a tax on everyone else. Scope Phase 1 — Define What is "active" vs. "passive" participation for delegators? What is "quality" for orchestrators? (uptime, performance, pricing, adoption of best practices?) How is each measured on-chain vs. off-chain? What are the known limitations and edge cases? Phase 2 — Design What mechanisms exist to reward quality? (protocol changes, treasury programs, reputation systems) What are the tradeoffs of each approach? How do we handle "vampire nodes," dormant stake, and inactive orchestrators? Phase 3 — Propose Draft recommendations for community discussion Identify what requires a LIP vs. a treasury program vs. social norms Key Questions to Answer Can quality be measured purely on-chain, or do we need off-chain signals? Is this a protocol change or can it be addressed through treasury incentive programs first? Who defines the quality criteria — Foundation, community, or a working group? Out of Scope: Changing overall inflation rate (covered by other emissions LIP’s) Success Criteria: Community-agreed definition of active participation and quality participation + at least one concrete mechanism proposed for implementation in H2 2026
Admin Team 5 days ago
Tackling Free Riding & Participation Quality
Objective: Define what "quality participation" means for delegators and orchestrators, how it's measured, and how emissions/treasury incentives can be tuned to reward it. Problem Statement: Today emissions reward participation without distinguishing quality. Passive stake, dormant delegators, and underperforming orchestrators all receive the same rewards as active, high-value participants. This is a tax on everyone else. Scope Phase 1 — Define What is "active" vs. "passive" participation for delegators? What is "quality" for orchestrators? (uptime, performance, pricing, adoption of best practices?) How is each measured on-chain vs. off-chain? What are the known limitations and edge cases? Phase 2 — Design What mechanisms exist to reward quality? (protocol changes, treasury programs, reputation systems) What are the tradeoffs of each approach? How do we handle "vampire nodes," dormant stake, and inactive orchestrators? Phase 3 — Propose Draft recommendations for community discussion Identify what requires a LIP vs. a treasury program vs. social norms Key Questions to Answer Can quality be measured purely on-chain, or do we need off-chain signals? Is this a protocol change or can it be addressed through treasury incentive programs first? Who defines the quality criteria — Foundation, community, or a working group? Out of Scope: Changing overall inflation rate (covered by other emissions LIP’s) Success Criteria: Community-agreed definition of active participation and quality participation + at least one concrete mechanism proposed for implementation in H2 2026
Admin Team 5 days ago
Onchain Treasury Allocation Improvements
Establish norms, processes, and accountability mechanisms for how the onchain treasury is allocated — ensuring capital flows to highest-impact ecosystem activities. Problem Statement: Now that the treasury rate cut is back online we need a prioritization criteria for the deployment of funds, a formal framework for projects where resource allocation is the key decision point, and a broader accountability framework that alleviates previous community concerns about the ROI of deployed funds Scope Define what treasury funds should and shouldn't be used for - eg. align treasury allocation priorities to Roadmap items Establish norms and an evaluation framework for proposals (if needed) Establish a process for use of RFPs, such that funds can be secured before RFP teams are chosen Set performance, transparency and reporting norms for funded projects Key Questions to Answer How are Roadmap items suggested and determined? What are the real differences between "Roadmap-aligned" vs. speculative proposals? What should be used to evaluate proposals? How can an RFP process work in advance of deployed funding given the onchain execution of the treasury? What does performance, transparency and reporting look like post-funding? What group should be engaged to best answer and propose action on the items above? Out of Scope: Size of treasury reward cut rate itself (separate LIP can be further created if needed) Success Criteria: Community-ratified norms published; new treasury proposals evaluated as per norms, future funded projects deliver as per norms
Admin Team 5 days ago
Onchain Treasury Allocation Improvements
Establish norms, processes, and accountability mechanisms for how the onchain treasury is allocated — ensuring capital flows to highest-impact ecosystem activities. Problem Statement: Now that the treasury rate cut is back online we need a prioritization criteria for the deployment of funds, a formal framework for projects where resource allocation is the key decision point, and a broader accountability framework that alleviates previous community concerns about the ROI of deployed funds Scope Define what treasury funds should and shouldn't be used for - eg. align treasury allocation priorities to Roadmap items Establish norms and an evaluation framework for proposals (if needed) Establish a process for use of RFPs, such that funds can be secured before RFP teams are chosen Set performance, transparency and reporting norms for funded projects Key Questions to Answer How are Roadmap items suggested and determined? What are the real differences between "Roadmap-aligned" vs. speculative proposals? What should be used to evaluate proposals? How can an RFP process work in advance of deployed funding given the onchain execution of the treasury? What does performance, transparency and reporting look like post-funding? What group should be engaged to best answer and propose action on the items above? Out of Scope: Size of treasury reward cut rate itself (separate LIP can be further created if needed) Success Criteria: Community-ratified norms published; new treasury proposals evaluated as per norms, future funded projects deliver as per norms
Admin Team 5 days ago