Proposal: Ecosystem Growth Council Formation

Echoing @bitblondy , thanks Eugene for incorporating the feedback from the last few weeks.

We appreciate the improvements added to the structure and timeline of the EGC. Also, the updated version increased the transparency of their activities, while making it clear for everyone what the operational details of the EGC are. The refined veto process makes more sense, while the research requirements are spot on.

Considering that most of the feedback was taken into consideration, as verified delegates we endorse this proposal to go up for a vote.

2 Likes

Thank you very much for this proposal. Overall, we support it.

Our only question is: what’s the reasoning behind having such a large council? We believe a smaller team could manage the resources more efficiently and without increasing the program’s costs. The committee could consist of three members: one from the Foundation and two professionals (who may or may not be delegates).

1 Like

One question that comes to mind here, is how will the council balance between the activities and the interests of the token holders? The token holders clearly want the tokens to appreciate in value, we know half of the equation, the other half involves scoping the networks goals, which generally involved expansion, but that doesn’t always equate to price increase, especially in the short term.

Otherwise, I believe this proposal is ready to go to vote for the following reasons:

  • For the first iteration a 6 month term is the ‘industry standard’
  • The veto mechanisms ensures both alignment with the DAO and serves as an anti-capture mechanism
  • we need to be urgent with capital allocation (now more than ever)
  • the councils structure is balanced enough
  • there is enough embedded transparency to ensure informed decision making by the delegates

Hi Eugene,

As I mentioned on the call, I think this is a good step in the decentralised direction.

Looking forward to learning about any potential multisig structure.

Cheers

I have taken a look at the revised proposal and also heard inputs from delegates on the Governance call.

I do endorse this proposal, as I believe it has the opportunity to get the right people to spur the growth of Scroll ecosystem.

1 Like

We brought this up in both calls today if you want more details on the response.

Short version - the proposal is written such that we can start once we have 5 people, inclusive of the 2 gov team members. So we don’t need all 7 to start.

The overall goal of having 7 and not 5 is to make sure there’s both sufficient delegate representation as well as the potential of bringing in outside experts to help.

This feels difficult to answer without having clarity on who else is on the council. Overall, I’m personally viewing this from a fundamental investor lens. The goal is to channel some Warren Buffet energy - how do we create value that can be handed down to our children in the future, as opposed to how we make # go up in the next quarter. That is to say, we (at least as the Foundation) have a long term view and will look to build this team in a way that strives to balance the short term need for network growth and long term sustainability.

Not sure if that actually answers your question though.


Thanks again to everyone for their feedback! The remaining to do here is to revise the proposal to include verbiage relating to the multi-sig and charter as discussed on the call today

1 Like

Here is a revised version of the proposal addressing the remaining points from today’s calls.

Proposal Type: Growth

Summary

This proposal is meant to outline the first formal council in Scroll DAO, the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC). The EGC’s goal will be approve, oversee, and evaluate growth programs that can help the success and sustainability of the Scroll ecosystem.

The EGC will oversee a budget of 2m SCR from the DAO to allocate across relevant growth programs. Using a combination of an RFP and sourcing new ideas through the DAO, this council will be responsible for standing up Scroll DAO ecosystem growth efforts that are aligned with overall activities in the network, as well as the interests of token holders.

The Ecosystem Growth Council will be a 7 person council, with 2 members from the Foundation and 5 chosen members. Members can be either delegates or relevant professionals interested in a committed part-time project. The envisioned balance could be something like 3 delegates, 2 Foundation members, and 2 hired professionals. The council will be able to start operating once there are at least 3 chosen members identified + the 2 Foundation team members.

EGC roles should be viewed as commitments that require approximately 10 hours per week. The proposal is intended to cover a 6 month window.

The expected outcome of the EGC is to have at least one focused ecosystem growth initiative in place by the end of August 2025, and in turn to support the goal of getting 20 highly aligned Scroll founders.

Motivation

We have had a few attempts at getting some kind of ecosystem growth effort off of the ground since we did our first Co-Creation Cycle at the end of 2024. While we get some quality high-level ideas, we have not been able to get a detailed proposal in this category that instills confidence in delegates.

As a result, we believe creating a dedicated council may be the best path forward. By combining a mix of delegates, growth professionals, and Foundation employees, this council would be well positioned to approved and oversee growth efforts that are aligned with Labs and Foundation.

We believe this process would help get the highest chance at a quality growth proposal.

Execution

Operational

Recruiting

The first step would focus on recruiting the council. This will happen as a transparent recruiting process managed by the governance team. A mix of forms and discourse will be used to receive applications.

Responsibilities

Once formed, the EGC would review the responses to the RFI . The EGC is also able to propose new ideas (need to be mindful of potential CoI if the EGC members include themselves in the execution team) and call for more ideas from delegates and the wider community. They may also need to field new outreach from service providers who might have other ideas for ecosystem growth.

The council members should also familiarize themselves with some research on the topic, including, but not limited to:

The overall set of responsibilities of council members will include:

  • Attending regular meeting (at least 2 team check ins per month)
  • Reviewing and responding to RFI responses
  • Approving growth proposals, ensuring there is the appropriate alignment and oversight in place
  • Reporting on the results of the council’s activities
  • Sourcing potential external collaborations

Here is an example of what a tentative timeline could look like:
Month 0: voting cycle, approval, recruiting process (assuming this is June 2025)
Month 1: council officially commences, reviews RFIs, reviews research
Month 2: scope additional RFIs/RFPs, review, provide feedback, refine
Month 3: begin making decisions about which growth programs to support (specific projects that can be considered on an ad hod basis), initial reporting, continue sourcing new ideas as appropriate
Months 4-5: depending on the volume and quality of ideas/proposals, the EGC could still continue the review and approval process, and/or can shift to working with the awarded initiative to maximize success. Additionally, a draft of the charter should make it to the forum during this time so that it can be included in the voting cycle taking place during month 6 to avoid disruption (assuming that reflects the interest of the DAO).
Month 6: Final report, extension or renewal including charter.

Approval / Multi-sig

The EGC would be able to use it’s budget to approve new growth initiatives. The council would need a 4/7 vote to pass any proposal that uses less than 25% of the total budget, and a 6/7 to pass any proposal that would use more than 25% of the budget.

After the first 6 months, the council will need to produce a charter that outlines it’s duties and relevant governance processes. This charter will be needed to request more budget or to extend it’s window of activity beyond the first 6 months if there is remaining budget.

To start, the multi-sig will be managed by the Foundation. The charter that will be created in these first 6 months will outline a future policy for the multi-sig.

Reporting

The EGC will be responsible for producing a report before the end of the 6 months to help a) evaluate the program, and b) help position if there should be an extension. There should be a 3-month check in as well, where an update is shared on the forum and in a community call.

Reporting should generally capture:

  • summaries of council actions (including info on the individual members decisions)
  • overviews of major decisions
  • share information on funded activities, outputs, and outcomes,
  • lessons learned

The EGC should track and report on data related to proposals that come in. This should include:

  • the total number of proposals received
  • the number of proposals that received feedback
  • the breakdown of approvals and rejections

Additionally, meeting notes from the meetings will be have notes made available for transparency purposes, within 3 business days of the meeting.

Veto & Offchain Vote

Once votes conclude, a 3 business day veto window kicks in once the decision and rationale are posted on the forum. During this time, delegates are able to call for a veto on a EGC decision if they see fit.

In the case where the EGC makes a vote that the delegates want to veto, delegates would comment on the relevant forum post (or create a new forum post) requesting an offchain vote to confirm a veto. At least 5 separate comments from delegates requesting the vote would be needed to initiate the veto. If that snapshot receives more than 50% voting for a veto, then the proposal is reworked and put forth to the EGC for a new vote. This can be done once. If that vote is vetoed again, then the proposal will not proceed.

The EGC can choose to review a proposal beyond that on an ad hoc basis and will need to share rationale after on the forum within 2 weeks.

Charter

The EGC will need to generate a charter that will outline the policies relating to the EGC beyond this initial 6 month proposal. This will include, but is not limited to, questions such as:

  • Term limits / when the initial council members will roll off
  • Future recruitment process
  • Future multi-sig signers
  • Revised metrics

Personnel & Resources

The 7 person committee would consist of:

  • 3-4 delegates
  • 1-2 professionals
  • 2 Foundation members, likely from the governance team

The EGC will be able to start operating once the 3 delegates are identified. The delegates will be selected either by the Foundation via a transparent recruiting process. Concurrently, applications will be reviewed for the professionals.

Financial

This proposal would include a total budget of 2m SCR from the DAO treasury. Of this, 380k would be reserved for overhead costs (labor, software / tooling, marketing, etc.).

If any of the 1.62m SCR is needed for anything besides a growth initiative, then EGC members can put forth a proposal that would require a 6/7 vote and would need to clear a 3 business day veto window (if there is at least 25% voting against this non-growth spend in the veto, then it does not pass).

Passing this proposal is not a commitment to spend these funds no matter what. If this proposal does pass, that means the EGC has up to these amounts to spends. Any funds not used will be returned to the DAO treasury.

Evaluation

The primary goal for this council is to put an ecosystem growth initiative in place. As such, the primary outcomes will be the creation of the initial initiatives and any relevant metrics that emerge from that initiative. It’s important to recognize that a 6 month timeline may be a challenging one to recruit the council, review programs, approve at least one initiative, and oversee the initiative as it gets going. As a result, there will be limited available data on the impacts of the funded initiative itself, so the success of the council in the first 6 months will center on the operations and transparency.

Other aspects for evaluation include:

  • Has the EGC been hosting regular meetings (at least 2 per month)?
  • Do all meetings have public notes shared within 3 business days?
  • Is there a 6-month report?
  • Have all proposals been reviewed and given feedback?
  • How many proposals have been approved?
  • Were any vetos triggered?
  • Were any triggered vetos resolved?

Conclusion

This proposal puts forth the idea of forming an Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC) with a budget of 2m SCR (up to 380k for overhead and marketing, and no less than 1.62m set aside for growth proposals. This council would be require a commitment of at roughly 10 hours per week for 6 months. The EGC would have the ability to review and approve or reject proposals directly without requiring a full DAO vote, though their decisions could be veto’ed by the DAO.

3 Likes

As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.

1 Like

I support this current proposal state

1 Like

This actually clarifies the goal of the council per say, I initially thought we wanted to do this as fast as possible and iterate to improve, but it the main goal is to have long term sustainability it kinda answers my question.

Echoing @404Gov I think this proposal is ready to go to vote and strongly support the end main goal of onboarding and/or supporting 20 highly aligned Scroll founders.

Hi Eugene,

Thanks for your response. We listened to the call and noted your point about the large size of the council being primarily intended to ensure delegate representation for token holders, even prioritizing delegate inclusion over professional profiles.

We’d like to respectfully emphasize a different perspective. Token holders are already represented by delegates through governance votes and through their ability to remove council members who don’t meet expectations. That doesn’t necessarily mean delegates should be directly involved in councils that require specific skills and expertise, in this case, in growth and business development.

For that reason, we’d like to reiterate our recommendation to reduce the size of the council or reconsider the inclusion of delegates whose participation may add redundancy, cost, and inefficiencies to the council’s day-to-day operations.

A growth and BD council should be composed of individuals who deeply understand the nature of the work, whether they are delegates or not.

Lastly, if the decision is to move forward with a council of this size, we recommend appointing a dedicated individual responsible for its coordination—someone who is clearly accountable both internally and externally.

In large councils, lack of clarity around responsibilities often leads to friction in task distribution, mismatched expectations, and execution delays. Considering that the proposed KPIs are somewhat loose (which is understandable given the experimental nature of the initiative), we believe it would be beneficial to have someone in charge of managing operations, assigning responsibilities, and serving as the primary point of contact for the DAO in terms of communication and reporting.

This person could be considered for a higher compensation, given the added responsibility.

1 Like

As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.

We vote in favor of this proposal. While we have some reservations about the council’s structure, we don’t see it as a strong enough concern to warrant a ‘no’ vote. We’re excited to see the team begin working on ecosystem growth.

If approved, we hope our feedback will be taken into account

1 Like

I voted in FAVOUR.

It’s a worthwhile initiative for the DAO

I would invite the council to focus less on attracting degens and more on vertically-focused growth initiatives. As a structure, the council can still work here well enough for now and in 6 months can be replaced by more focused units if the DAO is ready. And even if more focus was the outcome of org design progress, an umbrella initiative is still needed and the budget here is not crazy.

I have some doubts about the council needing so many people, but a test is the right way for this and we can iterate for other councils soon.

2 Likes

I voted in favor.

It’s time Scroll spent more time and resources to hire BD experts to grow the organic usage of the network. Excited to see the output of this committee over time.

’ll be voting “FOR” the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC). It’s a promising step if we design it right.

Key Upsides:

*** Strategic Focus:** Dedicated expertise for targeted, high-impact growth.

  • Efficiency: Faster support for projects and quicker action on opportunities.
  • Proactive Growth: Actively cultivates new opportunities, not just reactive.
  • Accountability: Clear responsibility for ecosystem growth funds and results.

Critical Design Points (To Get Right):

Governance: Clear mandate, robust DAO oversight, and careful member selection to prevent centralization.
Transparency: Fully open operations, decisions, and clear conflict of interest rules.
Legitimacy: Must operate with broad community trust and alignment.
Multi-sig: Nailing the trust architecture

The EGC has major potential to expand Scroll’s ecosystem. Addressing these design points carefully will be key to unlocking that.

Hello all! :raising_hands:

For transparency, sharing the draft of the application form for the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC) here for feedback.

:loudspeaker: CTA: If you have any suggestions or edits, please let us know by night Sunday the 8th (your local time) so we can incorporate them before officially launching the form. (Separate announcement will be made to announce the launch of the applications).

Hey everyone,

Applications for the Ecosystem Growth Council are officially open! :tada:

If you’re interested in joining the council, we’d love to hear from you. Feel free to apply - and don’t hesitate to share the link with anyone you think would be a great fit:

Application Form

1 Like

On behalf of Unicircle.

Fast ecosystem growth is possibly the strongest indicator for the success of any chain. We desperately need to attract builders and projects to build on top of Scroll. In order to do this, we need a group of subject matter experts who are incentived to draw up a battle plan. Therefore, we are voting FOR this proposal.

1 Like

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We are voting FOR the proposal.

First of all, we would like to thank the Scroll Foundation for bringing this proposal forward. We believe that a dedicated group can ignite initiatives more effectively, especially when supported by the Foundation, and move growth ideas to execution in a more streamlined way.

That said, we do not see a reason why this council needs to be as big, and launching with a reduced size makes more sense for this initial phase. A smaller group can and should still achieve the right mix of Foundation, delegates, and professionals that this initiative is aiming for, while simplifying coordination and allowing the DAO to judge performance more easily.

Most importantly, it would be beneficial to clarify who is the responsible party for the success of the EGC. We’ve often seen councils face a diffusion of responsibility, and therefore, no one feels absolute ownership for the results they deliver. We want to avoid that by knowing ahead of time who the accountable person is going to be. In that way, delegates can know who to turn to in the event they have questions or concerns, or who to rely on to tell them if something is wrong.

When it comes to finances, we don’t have a strong opinion on how much the council members should be paid, or how much the council should have at its disposal for operational expenses. What we do, however, feel strongly about is the need for proper documentation of expenses and transparency around them, either as they happen or with a regular reporting cadence.