This is the replacement for the bi-weekly X community spaces, brought to you every 14 days.
Covering August 28 - September 10, 2026 · forum.reserve.org
Last fortnight, the forum discussion around $RSR unlocks changed the available options. This fortnight, those options became available to vote. Fifty posts across twelve active threads, from seventeen participants, moved Reserve from debating the principle of community control toward a concrete implementaiton via the BURN gauge. This came on top of Confusion Capital publishing a constitutional pledge of how it will approach these decisions.
Last but not least, a wave of malicious proposals made the less glamorous side of governance impossible to ignore.
The product discussions were equally practical: whether a few basis points justify adding collateral, whether ETH+ should simplify its basket, and whether community marketing can become a measurable referral business instead of another engagement campaign.
The unlocking debate now has a constitution
Nevin’s Constitutional RSR Unlocking Governance Pledge defines how ABC/CC will approach any future unlocking decisions: Confusion Capital proposes changes to its unlocking system, and independent RSR holders must approve them. The same process governs changes to the process itself. No unilateral rewrite of the rules is possible.
The pledge identifies 37.5B locked RSR owned by Confusion Capital that has never entered circulation. Votes exclude tokens held by Nevin, Confusion Capital, ABC Labs, Best Friend Finance, and future CC-incubated companies. The baseline requires a seven-day vote, at least 1B RSR participating, and majority approval. Yes, No, and Abstain all count toward quorum. Full proposals and announcements are supposed to precede voting by seven days.
This consitution is not a legal transfer of the treasury to tokenholders or an onchain enforcement mechanism. Confusion Capital retains legal control of its RSR. The existing Bitcoin-shaped release curve also remains the fallback, although currently paused; Nevin said there is no near-term need to resume unlocking.
This is a meaningful public commitment, but not trustlessness. Its strength will come from consistent observance, clear administration, and holders actually participating.
The burn gauge and milestone plan are both on the ballot
On September 8, Nevin formally proposed both alternatives, saying Confusion Capital is prepared to adopt whichever holders choose. The Burn Gauge ballot and Milestone Plan ballot opened September 10 and close September 17 at 16:00 UTC.
These are separate For / Against / Abstain votes, not a single either-or poll. Each must reach its own 1B RSR quorum. If only one passes, it is adopted. If both pass, the one with more total For voting power wins. If neither passes, the existing framework remains in place while the search for an agreed replacement continues. Voting on one proposal does not count toward the other’s quorum.
The final gauge settings are:
| Setting | Effect of protocol RSR burns | Additional treasury unlocking |
|---|---|---|
| High burn | Each 1 RSR burned also burns 4 treasury RSR | None |
| Low burn | Each 1 RSR burned also burns 2 treasury RSR | None |
| Sustain | Each 2 RSR burned unlocks 1 treasury RSR | Burn 2 treasury RSR per extra 1 unlocked |
| Low growth | Each 1 RSR burned unlocks 2 treasury RSR | Burn 1 treasury RSR per extra 2 unlocked |
| High growth | Each 1 RSR burned unlocks 4 treasury RSR | Burn 1 treasury RSR per extra 4 unlocked |
Holders would choose the setting quarterly, after the report and community call, using ranked-choice voting. For now, the current ballot only asks whether to adopt the gauge at all.
The continued RFC discussion materially shaped the current gauge version. The Sustain setting survived the discussion, and ranked choice voting made it into the final proposal. The community alternative became a formally sponsored option.
The milestone alternative keeps the proposed terms: $2.5M Net Annualized Recurring Revenue (NARR), up to 3B RSR, and a $0.005-$0.015 30-day average price band. Below the floor there is no automatic unlock; above the ceiling the automatic allocation is capped at $45M worth of RSR.
Milestones make releases conditional on a defined economic achievement and price test. While the gauge gives holders recurring discretion over the relationship between burns and releases.
Delegates have something very real to watch
Last time, the delegate discussion was about keeping watch. This time, Raphael_Anode reported sixteen malicious proposals across more than seven DTFs in three days, including attackers buying small governance stakes. This now ballooned into a denial of service attack with 1,624 proposals on $BDTF being deployed in a single night. Reserve’s September 8 public warning also reports the malicious-proposal activity and emphasizes turnout: the attacker’s own voting power was insufficient to pass the proposals alone.
The proposed response has two parts. First, standardize the process across Index and AI DTFs: 48-72 hours of forum discussion, a formal proposal with an identified proposer and clear payload, then the normal onchain voting or optimistic-governance window. A governor should be able to compare the transaction with a previously declared intent, and should not need to guess whether an unfamiliar wallet belongs to the team.
Second, consider restricting onchain proposal creation to vetted proposers. Tokenholders and delegates would retain voting and veto powers; the proposed restriction is on who can put an executable proposal into the system. Anode offered to help develop screening, onboarding, and revocation rules.
There is a real tradeoff here. A curated proposer list can reduce exposure to malicious submissions, but makes the quality and accountability of that list crucial. It cannot replace payload review or an attentive veto process. The current denial of service attack on governance underlines the immediate importance of permissions here.
wOUSD found a more plausible first home in USD3
The wOUSD discussion added fourteen replies and became a useful exercise in saying “not here, not yet” without saying “never.”
The original case was higher yield for eUSD. Delegates pushed back on the size of the benefit relative to the work. Under the proposed eUSD methodology, OUSD’s roughly $6M size would constrain the allocation to around $600K. Ham questioned the engineering, monitoring, and governance burden of an asset that could only occupy a small part of a much larger basket. He also noted that the methodology itself had not yet been ratified onchain: the discussion was applying a proposed discipline, not citing a completed governance change.
Then the fintech constraint became explicit. Josh reported that no OUSD submission had been made to El Salvador’s CNAD, and estimated that approval could take two to four months given the existing queue.
Pete subsequently pivoted toward USD3, where a similar dollar allocation could matter more. Sixty’s September 2 model estimated that an approximately $340K wOUSD position would raise blended yield by 34 basis points to 4.20%, while increasing USDC concentration from 75% to 80%.
At the same time a wOUSD collateral-plugin pull request was submitted September 8. The plug-ins fixed-peg design assumes 1 OUSD equals $1 which does not detect a market depeg or backing loss. That assumption deserves explicit review before governors treat integration as a solved problem.
ETH+ can improve its basket without answering its strategy question
Ham’s ETHx removal proposal proposed risk management changes: remove the 5% ETHx position and move it to frxETH, leaving 50% stETH, 25% weETH, and 25% frxETH.
ETHx liquidity has deteriorated, its yield is the weakest in the basket, and it could well be easier to exit now than later. The model raises blended yield from 2.33% to 2.35%, but increases estimated single-transaction redemption capacity below 0.5% slippage from roughly 65% to 100% of current ETH+ supply.
Ham moved the proposal onchain September 7.
Community growth could look like a product
The RSR is the Ticket discussion moved from conviction-weighted ambassador rewards toward something easier to measure. 0xd15co emphasized actual referrals and conversions. Ranger challenged engagement-based incentives by pointing out how easily apparent activity can be manufactured. Many dead social-fi chains tell a similar story. Paying for yaps is not easy to pull off.
0xJMG contributed attribution-tool suggestions, and blue posted a Register “Earn” tab mockup on September 10: connect a wallet, receive a referral link, and track referred TVL, monthly earnings, and rank. The proposed incentive structure combines fee sharing with performance tiers.
Instead of asking the community to be louder in general, the thread now tries to answer whether someone can bring capital into a DTF and earn a transparent share of the value created. The next hard questions are attribution, retention, abuse resistance, and unit economics. A leaderboard alone is not sufficient, but a measurable funnel gives the conversation an observable basis.
Briefly noted
Sagix proposed moving ixEDEL’s Swiss-franc sleeve from ZCHF to svZCHF, a savings wrapper with a governance-set 3.5% APY at the time of the post. The roughly 2,226 ZCHF sleeve would keep its currency exposure while adding savings interest. The proposer reports fork-tested redemptions and says existing solver routes remove the need for the earlier OpenOcean integration request. Reserve-side authorization in the rebalance form remains a dependency.
Routine eUSD revenue-share governance continued with the August 29 update and a new September 10 proposal. Operational maintenance continued alongside the larger supply-policy and security debates.
The bottom line
Reserve spent this fortnight making discretion more explicit. Who may change the unlocking rules? Who may submit a proposal? Which collateral is eligible? What is a referral actually worth? These are different questions with a common requirement: rules that participants can understand before they commit capital or cast a vote. A road to legibilty and resilience.
All eyes are currently on the ongoing governance attack, but after that on the decision on September 17: whether independent RSR holders can turn a productive public argument into a decision with sufficient participation. Also important to point out that the Snapshot votes use private, shielded voting through Shutter! You love to see it!
Appendix: Reserve Protocol and RSR - Social media echo as reported by last30days
Community and market roundup · August 12 - September 11, 2026
The fresh /last30days sweep found a public conversation centered on AI DTF explainers, governance participation, and RSR’s longer-term investment narrative. The Reddit material included seven distinct r/ReserveProtocol threads. The raw X search returned eighteen posts.
DTF education shares the stage with governance
Reserve’s September 9 BUILDOUT explainer presented a single-token basket of 25 US-listed companies behind AI infrastructure. It had 65 likes and 10 reposts at collection. The September 10 unlocking-vote announcement had 48 likes and 6 reposts, while the malicious-proposal warning had 55 likes and 8 reposts.
On Reddit, the retrieved threads broke down BUILDOUT, POWER, PHOTON, NEOCLOUD, and ROBOTS. The September 9 BUILDOUT post focused on what happens underneath the zapper. An earlier BUILDOUT discussion produced a more practical reader question: “how does the quarterly rebalancing handle massive single stock pumps?” That is the kind of question product education needs to answer once the initial basket concept is understood.
RSR is still well below the milestone floor
At 09:57 UTC on September 11, CoinGecko reported RSR at $0.00139949, with an $87.55M market capitalization. It was down 2.53% over fourteen days but up 16.22% over thirty days.
The spot price was about 28% of the milestone proposal’s $0.005 floor. That is context, not a trigger calculation: the proposal uses a 30-day moving average, alongside the NARR condition. A price bounce by itself neither satisfies the economic milestone nor authorizes an unlock.
Governance work is appearing in the code too
On September 9, Register merged a voting-end countdown column. On September 10, the DTF interface merged cross-DTF governance reads, including proposal feeds, voter information, governance activity, and staking totals for dashboard use. Register also merged updated DTF overview pages during the fortnight.
The social bottom line
Reserve’s public message now has two calls to action: understand what a DTF holds, and participate in the decisions that govern the ecosystem.
The billion dollar question now is whether voting participation reaches quorum, governance tooling reduces monitoring friction, and clearer product explanations or referral experiments bring users who stay.