# Proposal: Ecosystem Growth Council Formation **URL:** \ **Category:** Ecosystem Growth\ **Tags:** growth, councils\ **Created:** [May 15, 2025, 9:00pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-ecosystem-growth-council-formation/718 "2025-05-15T21:00:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![eugene](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/forum.scroll.io/eugene/32/162_2.png) [@eugene](https://forum.scroll.io/u/eugene)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2025, 6:14pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-ecosystem-growth-council-formation/718/17 "2025-05-23T18:14:45Z")
Thanks for the continued comments and engagement all. > [@Curia](#): > > We also agree that a clear mandate is essential for evaluating performance, as highlighted by @SEEDGov particularly through the use of a defined six-month roadmap. I think it’s reasonable to have this as a tenative roadmap. What I mean by this, and to @Chris_Areta’s common on whether the EGC can propose new growth ideas, I was imaging the council would get to propose new ideas or request a more specific RFI/RFP (the one we did was RFI on all things growth, the EGC could request one just on liquidity programs, as an example). Given that, I don’t want to impose a roadmap that might limit their ability to propose and move forward with the best ideas for the Scroll ecosystem. At the same time accountability and clarity are important, so we will include some kind of tentative roadmap. > [@Curia](#): > > To ensure effectiveness and accountability, we recommend establishing clear KPIs for the Ecosystem Growth Council. We will add a set of initial KPIs and frequency of reporting (3 months, so twice during this initial budget, seems reasonable). > [@Curia](#): > > Conduct a brief community survey at the mid-point (three months) to assess satisfaction with Council performance and transparency. We can explore a mix of a survey and having a dedicated thread on the forum where people can share concerns publicly (though maybe we should have an anon option as well to make sure all are comfortable sharing). > [@ModularCrypto](#): > > On member rotation: We feel that a 12-month rotation period may be too long, especially for a DAO that is still in its early stages. A 6-month rotation could encourage more dynamism and accountability within the council. Alternatively, it would be helpful to define clear criteria for member replacement, in cases where someone is not meeting expectations or fulfilling their commitments. I would recommend that we don’t include this at this point. Instead, I would push for committing to the fact that the next budget approval will also require the creation of a charter for the EGC that would outline all of the points you brought up. > [@ModularCrypto](#): > > - Which types of initiatives the council is expected to proactively design and lead; and The intention is for the council itself to align on any more specific focus, though I do think a review of a broader set of ideas could be a good use of energy. Part of the problem seems to be that we don’t have an idea that a larger group has conviction in (or at least that hasn’t been apparent if it is the case), so part of the goal is sourcing and reviewing as many ideas as possible. The EGC is not expected to lead the programs that get approved. The EGC would be able to approve an idea and then source the people to manage it, or could approve a proposal that includes a proposed service provider. The council could also request that multiple service providers work together on a joint propsal (or work together post proposal). > [@ModularCrypto](#): > > Which should be proposed by delegates or the broader community, with the council focusing on evaluation and oversight. Ideas can absolutely come from delegates or the wider community. A number of the [initial RFI](https://forum.scroll.io/t/ecosystem-growth-request-for-ideas-rfi/624) responses were from delegates and it would be great to have more ideas come from delegates once the EGC is formed. What kind of delineation are you imagining? I don’t know if it makes sense for the EGC to run the grant program, though it’s not out of the realm of possibility. I see the more likely version being that the EGC reviews and approves an appropriate grant program, which is something I would personally be excited about. We just have to be mindful that many grant programs don’t lead to clearly positive outcomes, so it’s important to have a well thought out structure (and I know at least 2 of the RFI responses were about alternatives to traditional grant programs). I hope that the Local Node programs will start having regional grant programs attached to them with time to support the founders emerging there. > [@Abidemi](#): > > My only input is that I suggest the delegates go through a hiring process, not voting, the politics can often times end up stifling growth. Agreed, that’s the main concern we have with an election. > [@Sov](#): > > - Builder retention programs that create pathways from initial funding to sustainable growth - successful ecosystems need more than grants, they need progression frameworks. For sure. I think it would be great to see this emerge as part of / alongside the first funding programs. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > Would the EGC also be empowered to propose fresh ideas / initiatives beyond those in the existing RFI responses? Yes > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > It might be helpful to clarify that the veto window begins upon the EGC’s formal publication of its decision to the forum and not when the EGC’s vote concludes. Fair point, we will clarify this. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > what would be the duration of off-chain votes I was thinking 3 business days as a starting point. I think adopting the same cycle as onchain voting is too cumbersome. Let me know if you think we should extend this window. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > EGC’s decision should include a brief voting rationale from each member Especially as we solidify the council structures throughout the rest of this year, we can explore tooling to help automate such transparency. I’m thinking of what [HotCRP](https://hotcrp.com/) does for academic papers (you could set it so that once someone’s paper is reviewed, they get an automated email with certain parts of their review so that they know how they can improve. To start, including it in the forum post is reasonable. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > we suggest limiting this to the same category of delegates who are eligible to signal proposals Sorry, can you please clarify this? > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > We think the last step of putting the proposal to a full DAO vote adds unnecessary length to the process and is redundant. Fair, I’ll remove it. Please call out if you want to see something like this in the final proposal. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > restructuring the Operational section to include the following two subsections: > > - Responsibilities of the GRC > - Veto Process Will review and adjust the structure. > [@GozmanGonzalez](#): > > **Diversity in Expertise:** Consider specifying the ideal skill sets or verticals for the professional members — e.g., growth marketing, tokenomics, ecosystem partnerships — to ensure well-rounded strategic coverage. Yes, this will be outlined in the actual job descriptions, which the Foundation team will generate once this proposal passes. > [@GozmanGonzalez](#): > > **Founder Pipeline Tracking:** Since a key outcome is to support 20 aligned founders, it may help to embed clear metrics or a funnel framework (e.g., awareness, application, approval, support) for tracking their journey. The hope is for the EGC to develop such frameworks and metrics, though some KPIs will be outlined in the proposal. > [@GozmanGonzalez](#): > > a clearer breakdown of what qualifies as “non-growth spend” may reduce future ambiguity. I think this should be outline more clearly in the future charter, not at this stage. Will share a revised proposal soon --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-ecosystem-growth-council-formation/718)._