[RFC] RSR Health: Request For Comments

[R72]

Pretty much everything has been said and every angle addressed by the 40 responses above. Truly love and appreciate the engagement in this discussion. To add my perspective:

• more transparency is needed to better understand why substantial amounts need to be unlocked monthly. I get there are a lot of costs and expenses and I don’t need full disclosure on that, but unlocking 600M RSR seems/is steep by any standard. Even if the current dollar amount it represents is needed to cover all costs (unlikely), it send the implicit message that for the coming years you don’t anticipate any positive price impact (as a result, for instance, of the platform-fees driven burns). Consider a way to better inform stakeholders what the unlocks are used for.
• Unlocking is not tied in any way to value generation for the protocol and RSR specifically. Consider a way to tie (parts of the) unlocks to value. It doesn’t have to be quantative always, a qualitative objective is fine as well (as long as it is pre-defined and evaluated against)
• If most of the unlocked RSR is not sold, the unlocks may/will lead to expanding centralization of governance power. This is exactly the opposite of what Reserve (to me) stands for. Giving up the power to outvote all stakeholders in any given proposal is needed to make sure RSR holders consider their voice important/relevant again.

I think James’ proposal (or at least the proposed direction) to address this deserves serious consideration to meet team’s and stakeholders’ objectives.

[Misterwho]

Been holding for so long. More needs to be burned, just burn it! $RSR for the win!

[Haskel]

I’ve held RSR since 2019 and have watched every phase of the project. Its great to see the community coming together and proactively look for solutions to an admittedly long outstanding issue. The Bitcoin-style emission model never made sense. Bitcoin’s supply was earned through mining at the protocol level; RSR as a pre-minted ERC20 was issued at inception. Using that logic to justify a massive treasury has only postponed transparency.

Like many here, I’d welcome a burn to restore momentum. At the same time, as the core team has mentioned, a full burn could potentially starve the protocol of funds as it’s gaining traction, whether in the near or long term - especially when major integrations, operations and strategic partnerships require cash flow and confidentiality under NDA. With that said, we need a structure that gives us verifiable scarcity while keeping the project alive and fundable.

I’d like to put forward a few alternative ideas to whats already been discussed besides an outright 30b burn (which I am not against for the record) but could also potentially keep some flexibility for the team in future. The aim is to also lay ideas for the groundwork to more (overdue) community-level governance and team transparency.

1.) Deferred Burn Vault (DBV)

A smart-contract vault holding the ~30B (or whatever amount) of RSR from the existing supply and/or treasury. This will create a visible commitment to deflation without locking the team out of critical funding.

How it works:

• Tokens sit in the vault and cannot be spent or sold.

• When measurable KPIs are reached (for example: sustained RToken TVL above a threshold, protocol fees above X USD/month, or governance participation above Y %…etc), a set tranche is automatically burned.

• The option to burn on failure of hitting certain KPI’s could also be something to consider, rewarding performance discipline both ways.

• The contract includes a time-locked emergency clause - the team can propose to release a limited % (say ≤ 5 %) for urgent operational needs, but it executes only after a public waiting period (e.g. 7 days) unless vetoed by veRSR holders.

The result of this is on-chain accountability, transparent performance based burns, and preserved runway flexibility for the team in case of future need.

2.) Dynamic Burn Corridor (DBC)

This is the governance layer that dictates how the DBV behaves, or RSR’s “burn roadmap” as defined by the governors.

Initial structure

• The corridor is set at a minimum and maximum total burn commitment, e.g. 10B - 30B RSR.

• The lower bound (10B) is guaranteed - it signals seriousness and in this case we get the first, albeit smaller, major burn we’ve all been discussing immediately.

• The upper bound (30B) defines the maximum that can ever be burned from the vault without community approval of a new corridor.

• Adaptive Mechanism: The rate of burns inside this range changes automatically with performance. If adoption grows quickly (fees, TVL, or active RTokens rising), burns accelerate toward the upper end.

• If growth slows, burns pause or remain near the lower bound to conserve runway.

This gives market predictability - holders know there’s at least a 10B burn coming (in this example) which would happen immediately but no depletion would occur that could potentially hamstring the team and project in future. It also gives the team flexibility - burns scale with real results, not emotion or hype. The DBV would be the engine that actually executes burns; the DBC is the governance level that decides the rate, size, caps and metrics for those burns.

3.) veRSR Pilot

veRSR is a great idea that I fully support and though already put forward by James and many others above; I’d like to insert a few additions in the context of this alternative approach to burning.

Mechanics: Lock RSR for fixed periods (e.g. 3 months - 4 years) to receive veRSR voting power and yield from protocol fees or emissions.

veRSR voters help:

• Ratify KPI definitions.

• Approve or veto emergency vault withdrawals.

• Adjust the burn corridor over time.

Locked tokens shrink circulating supply (a “soft burn”) while rewarding loyalty, enhancing community involvement at the governance level and introducing gradual decentralisation.

When protocol-level burning was reintroduced, it became clear that the problem is not with the idea of burning itself, but with how and when it is done. The market reacts positively when burns are transparent, metric-driven, and clearly linked to performance. This model expands on that principle - the Deferred Burn Vault and Dynamic Burn Corridor add another avenue of performance-based burning alongside the existing index-protocol burn mechanisms. Together, they create a coordinated system where burns reflect genuine growth rather than arbitrary decisions.

4.) Transparency Charter

Transparency as also thoroughly discussed above has clearly been a major issue. Plenty of good ideas put forward and a few contributions from my side aiming at accountability without compromising institutional confidentiality.

• Quarterly attested reports showing inflows/outflows and spending categories for all team treasury wallets.

• Public dashboards for the DBV and DBC - everyone can verify burn progress and balances.

• A confidential lane for the team to use for sensitive partnerships or regulatory work, with disclosures released after a fixed delay (e.g. 90 days). This is done with the understanding that as much as we as a community would love to be involved in every step of the core teams progress, the nature of institutional discussions may preclude them from giving out information at all times.

  Working Together on the Details

  The precise KPIs, corridor parameters, and veRSR rules all need to be shaped collaboratively - by the team, community, and external advisors. The frameworks here are simply general ideas to expand on whats already been discussed, while keeping it straightforward enough to be implemented by both team and community without excess delays. Consider them as a ‘phase 1’ list of options to stabilise confidence now while paving the road to a fully self-regulating, revenue-backed burn mechanism later.

[Ranger]

This is a very good post. One complaint though, why would we lower burns when growth stalls? It’s precisely when we need the burn.

On another note, maybe there’s a very simple solution? Each week we vote on whether we burn the emission or not (and how much) depending on the weekly context, if milestones are met, or if the team has some new needs etc. Whatever we deem as fit. I would assume in the beginning 100% of the weekly emission would be burned, however we would also always have the possibility to send the emissions to the treasury if necessary (every new week). This would however, imply, that we have already solved the governance question (team overvoting).

[0xJMG]

Appreciate all the responses. Especially appreciate the critiques.
Hopefully a few more coming!

Aiming to collate, provide andditional context and respond thoroughly in the next 7 days.

[sonnyjune]

A burn is critical to show the industry and market that Reserve is serious about its own token. Current state of RSR has proven itself to be incapable of attracting staying retail, corporate, and institutional investors which is contributing to lack of optimal growth in the community and protocol. I understand why Reserve retaining control of a large supply long term can provide funding future business development and strategic partnerships, but those things should not be reliant solely on RSR holders. Ironically, poor price performance from the token contributes to why a massive supply of RSR is needed for future company functions. If this initiative to fix and strengthen tokenomics is taken, the price performance of RSR should begin to catch up to where it ought to be, which will increase the value of the RSR that Reserve retains, making the massive remaining supply unnecessary anyway.

While many of Reserve’s initiatives and changes over the years have been strategically executed, the management of RSR has not been, leading to disengagement from community members and exhaustion from investors receiving poor returns. Idealism has helped Reserve in many cases, but idealism has betrayed it when it comes to RSR. Current and potential investors may believe in the DTF/Reserve vision, but they also recognize they have personal goals as well and the growing crypto/defi industry competes with opportunity costs. Crypto is fiercely unforgiving. Reserve has established its influence in the industry with the perfect protocol fit, but unless it receives a new paradigm shift within its tokenomics, it simply will not establish its market dominance as the first mover for DTFs. Showing that Reserve is seriousness about RSR and attracting investors and builders as optimally as possible and as quickly as possible shows that it is aware of the expectations of investors and sensitivity of timelines. This doesn’t come from idealistic 5-10+ year timelines, it comes from urgency to secure dominance now and not later. Later may never arrive, especially if RSR is turning investors off to the protocol as a whole.

This proposal is long overdue and I’m glad community members smarter than myself have taken initiative to address the elephant in the room and articulate the need for change in ways many of us are less capable of doing. Reserve: I hope leadership recognizes there is a genuine issue here that is not simply about whining bagholders, but about the short to medium term health of the protocol which most certainly has the biggest effect on its long term health. It is all intertwined and the solution isn’t to rely on a stranglehold of control over most of the token supply for decades, it’s to make the necessary changes now to correct the single most important feature of the project (RSR) which has lost its way. It can get back on track, but the runway is shorter than some might realize.

Make the changes. Prioritize your investors. See how it leads to increased success of the protocol in the short, medium, and long term. Burn the 30b.

[mattimost]

@0xJMG

Before continuing, it’s important to acknowledge every current and past Reserve contributor, investor, and community member. The project’s longevity exists because of your conviction, and a belief in the potential of “Reserve Rights.”

Appreciate everyone who’s added their thoughts here. There’s a ton of different threads and points, it is going to take some time to address it all properly.

I really do love to see the engagement. I don’t agree with everything and candidly there is a bit that isn’t accurate, but it is great to see this much shared passion about RSR.

At ABC Labs, we are working on something important that we have been working on since May. I told the team to continue focusing on this to get it over the finish line. When we are done, we’ll come to engage in this conversation wholeheartedly, or if the thing isn’t across the line by 11/14, we’ll let you know and come engage in conversation at that point.

Leaders at BFF and CC have also been following and Nevin plans to engage next week once he has some bandwidth.

Thomas - CEO, ABC Labs

[PostAurum]

Thanks Thomas, I was sure you’d speak up.

I assume it has to do with this topic since you chose to update us here. We’re happy to wait for your update and ready to share our feedback!

[Haskel]

@Ranger

This is a very good post. One complaint though, why would we lower burns when growth stalls? It’s precisely when we need the burn.

On another note, maybe there’s a very simple solution? Each week we vote on whether we burn the emission or not (and how much) depending on the weekly context, if milestones are met, or if the team has some new needs etc. Whatever we deem as fit. I would assume in the beginning 100% of the weekly emission would be burned, however we would also always have the possibility to send the emissions to the treasury if necessary (every new week). This would however, imply, that we have already solved the governance question (team overvoting).

Appreciate your thoughtful response and it’s a good point. I agree intuitively it feels natural to want stronger burns when momentum fades, almost like a “buyback in the dip.” The challenge is that, in practice, burning into weakness often produces the opposite of what we want.

When growth stalls, liquidity and revenue are already thin. If we accelerate burns at that exact moment, we’re removing oxygen from the system - shortening runway, limiting flexibility for listings or partnerships, and risking the signal of reactionary management rather than deliberate, confidence-driven policy. It can also trap us in a loop where weak performance triggers more burns, which then limit our resources to reverse that weakness. We can end up potentially creating a dangerous feedback loop where: weak fundamentals → aggressive burn → short-term bounce → no structural change → renewed weakness.

By contrast, burning more in strength - when there’s real activity, demand, and fee growth - sends a far stronger signal and compounds positive cycles. It says the system is confident enough in its momentum to reduce supply sustainably. That’s why the Dynamic Burn Corridor concept ties the burn rate to measurable protocol performance: not necessarily to “reward success,” but to ensure burns happen when when they have real absorption capacity and don’t suffocate future growth.

Your idea of weekly burn votes is actually a great potential evolution of this as a second-layer mechanism once governance matures. After the Deferred Burn Vault and Dynamic Burn Corridor establish a transparent, rule-based, and auditable framework - veRSR governance can then take over to dynamically adjust burn rates week by week. That’s where collective intelligence actually improves capital efficiency: when governance is empowered after the foundation is stable.

In short:

• Phase 1 gives us guardrails and credibility. Establish the rules first (DBV + DBC → clear, auditable framework).
• Phase 2 gives us responsiveness through governance. Actively manage the dials through veRSR once we know the system can’t be overrun or misused.

That sequencing prevents short-term or reactionary policy shifts while still allowing the community to steer burn parameters once the system has a solid foundation. It’s how we evolve RSR from an ad-hoc burn narrative into a structured, participatory, and credible monetary architecture - with scarcity guided by performance data and calibrated through governance and collective judgement.

[Haskel]

Not sure if that reply was aimed at me, but to be clear, I am not part of the Reserve team and as far as I know, no decision has been made yet on any burn or emission change.

I’m only sharing ideas and contributing to the discussion as a long-time holder trying to find realistic solutions that balance investor interests with project sustainability.

[Teeb]

Where’s the $120M USD (20B+ tokens) in the RSR treasury funding exactly? If RSR went 5x due to token burn and increased scarcity and utility of RSR, that treasury would be $600m USD+. You’re telling me that’s not enough runway? Are you guys completely incompetent or just not transparent?

[Teeb]

Apologies just read your last comment. My comment is aimed at the team with respect to why we need 100B tokens. No project needs that.

[Braden]

Thomas, I hope you can shed a bit more light on what you’re talking about. There are almost 50 unique contributors to this thread, and they have been patient with Reserve for years. It’s ok to give them a thread of information. Does this have to do with veRSR or the supply or metaDAO or any other topics from this thread? If it’s something for an external party, or an unrelated project, that you can’t disclose, you can at least tell us that it’s private information for the moment. It would help the community understand why they need to wait ~3 weeks for your next reply.

[Centrated]

This proposal correctly identifies the structural flaws in RSR’s tokenomics, and I write to strongly support its recommendations. There is a fundamental contradiction between Reserve’s mission to fight inflation and its own token’s hyper-inflationary emission schedule. This continuous supply issuance, met with low productive demand, directly penalizes existing holders and undermines the project’s core value proposition.

The current emission structure creates a severe misalignment of incentives. It provides the team with a guaranteed, long-term funding stream that resembles a “slush fund” rather than a performance-based budget. After more than five years of development, this model removes the urgency required to deliver timely, market-driven results. A successful venture cannot be sustained by a framework that allows its core team to draw on future value indefinitely, particularly at the direct expense of its investors.

Furthermore, the Bitcoin-inspired emission schedule is irrelevant and detrimental to this protocol. Instead of fostering decentralized, proof-of-work-style distribution, it has been used to centralize voting power and value capture within the team. This directly contradicts the protocol’s stated goal of decentralization and gives merit to the criticism that RSR’s tokenomics were designed in a silo to benefit the team disproportionately.

The proposal’s call to burn the excess supply—estimated at 30 billion RSR—is the necessary solution. This action would immediately correct the distorted market metrics and, more importantly, instill the credible urgency for the team to deliver. The team’s true incentive should be the 20 billion RSR they already hold. Their long-term operational funding should come from staking these tokens and earning protocol fees, which creates a sustainable model that only succeeds if the protocol itself is successful.

It is time for the team to take this feedback seriously. This proposal provides a viable path to realign incentives, restore credible scarcity, and prove the protocol’s long-term viability. If the team is confident in the system they have built, they should be willing to stake their future on its success, just as their investors have.

[0xJMG]

Hello everyone, and thank you for the thoughtful comments and questions. In this response, I’ll start with the most important observations and questions and add some context along the way. To keep things clear, I’ll use a simple FAQ format to address each point.

1. What is the relationship between RSR health and price?

• RSR Health = System Function. Health reflects internal performance: governance participation, treasury allocation performance, DTF deployment quality, contributor results and retention, emissions efficiency and other metrics. These are causal inputs, the behaviors and coordination quality that eventually shape sustainable value. Like resting heart rate or blood pressure, they are leading indicators of resilience.
• RSR Price = Market Outcome. Price reflects external perception: liquidity, macro cycles, trends, and speculation. It’s a lagging and noisy signal, heavily influenced by forces outside governance, team or community control. Including it would conflate market sentiment with ecosystem function.
• The Bridge Between Them. Price can mirror health over long horizons, but short-term divergence is natural. The goal of tracking RSR Health is to manage what’s controllable so that, when macro tailwinds arrive, the system is already fit. Health precedes wealth; markets reward systems that can prove durable function under stress.

2. What could healthy RSR enable us to do:

• DTF deployers can launch more quickly and safely because the shared tech is already built, tested, and security-audited.
• Keeps DTFs neutral and resilient while cutting costs through decentralized, network-wide decision-making.
• Co-own how Reserve ecosystem capital is managed and grown openly so everyone’s effort can compound in the same direction.
• Attracts talent, institutions and partners who care about the project mission or or value prop and can trace how their efforts could benefit in the bigger picture.
• Work together smoothly, without being in one place or on payroll, turning open collaboration into a compounding flywheel

3. What are the main problems identified in this proposal?

• RSR ecosystem looks inefficient partly because unused supply distorts first-impression metrics like FDV and associated ratios (compared to peers)
• Too much control sits in company wallets with offchain decisioning, creating imbalance and hesitation from governors and builders. Since the community has no ownership in ecosystem strategy or capital allocation, they disengage or grow resentful instead of productively contributing. We are failing to optimally compound human with financial capital.

4. What are the proposed solutions, and why?

• Burn a significant part (initial estimate is ~30 billion) of the unused RSR supply to improve metrics legibility and build more trust.
• Move from an outdated fixed 100B RSR cap to a modern tail-emissions model (e.g. ETH issuance, SOL issuance, FRAX issuance) that funds growth minus the current metrics/fairness/dump-risk concerns
• Open up strategy and capital decisions to attract more talent and so the community can co-own the process and (learn how to) channel their ideas productively.

5. Can you clarify where non-circulating RSR is held in company wallets?

• Roughly 41 billion non-circulating RSR sit in company-controlled wallets (listed here, here, and here). It’s likely a few additional company wallets hold several billion more RSR, which the team or some extra onchain sleuthing could confirm.

6. What is the argument against fixed supply hard caps?

• In crypto we tend to worship hard caps but they’re super impractical. Inflation is needed to redistribute and realign incentives as things change. Even Bitcoin may face this in the next 15 years if fees can’t cover network security (background here, here and here). What communities really want is transparency and ownership, not arbitrary limits. A hard cap only reflects the social agreement at the time it was created. The 100 billion RSR meme made sense before tangible utility, benefits and data arrived, but operating projects can’t pay talent, buy hardware, fund marketing or rent services with legacy memes.

7. Why isn’t a simple RSR token burn enough to fix the problem?

• Burning tokens doesn’t fix the real issues, it just looks good superficially, and only temporarily. This proposal isn’t meant to superficially raise RSR’s price, and no one should expect that. It simply takes unused tokens out of today’s count to calm longstanding worries and improve first-impression metrics legibility. Those tokens can come back later through tail emissions if the community decides they’re needed for growth. It makes RSR look healthier and easier to understand without making premature promises.

8. Why does a tail emissions model work better than a capped supply?

• A capped supply can hold a project back because it assumes the future as a snapshot. A tail emissions model adds flexibility by allowing a small, steady stream of new tokens to fund growth, rewards, and security over time. It’s transparently managed and governed by the community, giving them a real voice in how incentives evolve. This keeps the economy healthier and more sustainable while improving how metrics are read and aligning RSR with modern systems like Ethereum and Solana.

9. Why does giving people ownership matter more than reducing supply?

• When people can see how decisions are made and have a say in them, they feel a greater part of the mission. That sense of ownership builds trust and motivation to help. It turns passive followers into active builders whose energy attracts more talent, ideas, and capital. Over time, that shared momentum can grow into something much bigger than any one team could create alone.

10. What level of active participation can we reasonably expect from RSR holders in expanded governance?

• In most crypto communities, fewer than 1% of holders actively participate, and that small group often creates the biggest benefits for everyone else. From what I’ve seen across many projects, it usually takes fewer than 20 focused, proactive contributors to noticeably improve an ecosystem’s health and direction. As an RSR holder, you’ll have the choice to join in directly or delegate your vote to someone you trust who’s putting in the work.

11. veRSR was proposed, but why choose it over regular DAO voting or another approach?

• It’s probably too early to compare veRSR, DAO voting, or other systems until there’s stronger agreement on the core problem and a willingness to act. Otherwise, we risk debating solutions before agreeing on what needs fixing. veRSR is a reasonable starting point since both the team and community already understand it a little. It’s onchain, transparent, and widely used across DeFi. Still, simpler options might offer similar benefits while fitting Reserve’s goals more closely. Once alignment is reached, parameters and scenarios should be modeled carefully with safeguards against governance capture. Other ideas like KPI-based emissions, adaptive burns, or Haskel’s DBV/DBC frameworks could also be explored as part of this evaluation.

12. For the proposed veRSR, DAO, or other model, what should it fund, and how can teams still move quickly?

• Governance should focus on a two-handful of major decisions each year, not day-to-day details. These include large expenses (like spending over $1M), emission adjustments, and strategic funding renewals. The model would direct capital to key areas such as service providers (like ABC Labs and auditors), ecosystem projects (such as Ugly Cash), top-ups to the Confusion Capital discretionary fund, liquidity programs, partnerships, and more.
• All funding proposals should include clear justification, projections, and receipts. Vendor teams would manage smaller monthly costs within their approved budgets and share summarized reports during renewals. The goal is to keep treasury management open and predictable, with only a few major checkpoints each year so governance stays effective without burning out.
• Some areas, like DTF basket changes, liquidity pool prioritization or grants, will need higher-frequency reviews within several sub-daos. If this proposal moves forward, the structure will need further detail and modeling.

13. If a token burn now and tail emissions later are being considered, how do we determine the right amounts?

• We need a better picture of how Reserve has used its capital over the past three years and what it’s likely to need over the next five. That information will help size things like the Confusion Capital discretionary fund and set parameters for tail emissions that can flex between inflationary and deflationary phases as conditions change. The goal is to design smart levers that keep the system balanced and sustainable over time.
• It’s about the same basic process any project uses: review spending, forecast needs, add a safety buffer, and align funding with the vision and traction. Later, if more capital is needed, make a new proposal and raise it.

14. How can we immediately accelerate stronger governance and improve related health issues raised in the original proposal?

• An idea is to create # delegate seats, each elected by the community twice a year. Every delegate would be given temporary voting power of __million RSR from company wallets and earn $,000 for a six-month term. They’d need to stay active in at least 70% of RSR-governed DTFs with >$ million TVL. Poor performance would mean losing the seat in the next vote. The annual budget could come from the veRSR or DAO budget, or from a share of DTF revenues. This paid delegate program would create a clear path for new contributors to earn trust and compete for future leadership roles. Anyone could also grow their own organic delegation support, which would carry weight in the semi-annual elections. Company wallets could still vote but should aim to never vote more than _% of the influence. (specific numbers left blank as placeholders)

15. How does this proposal help Reserve concentrate efforts on its unique edge?

• It’s a bit of a trick question. When I look at Reserve’s strengths, weaknesses, and what is the largest potential differentiator and hardest to copy, one thing stands out more than any other. The factor that could help DTF deployers launch faster, operate more securely and inexpensively, and make the ecosystem grow stronger is the same across all of it. Reserve’s edge is RSR health, and realizing it is the work ahead.

16. How should we measure RSR health?

• Upstream: Track participation and ownership signals, how much RSR is locked, who’s voting or delegating, how many proposals get made and approved, whether major spends show clear results, and how many new people are stepping up to help because they understand how their work pays off for everyone. Over time, the company’s share of ownership and influence should fall below 15%.
• Midstream: Optimize for DTF integrations growth and efficiency, measuring ratios like TVL per integration, TVL-to-FDV and other metrics.
• Downstream: Look at number and quality of listed assets, transaction volume, monthly active users, and protocol revenue or profit.

17. What is the expected sequencing or timeline for proposal implementation?

• Much of this depends on the company setting the pace and parameters, since progress requires company/community alignment on the core problems, solutions, overall strategy and how this fits against other priorities.
• It’s also important to acknowledge where the broader crypto market are in terms of adoption. Based on a16z’s estimate of 40–70 million onchain users, Coinbase’s Q2 report of 8.7 million active users, and Binance activity extrapolated (about 7-9x larger than Coinbase) from CoinGecko volumes coupled with Binance total reports, total monthly active crypto users are somewhere near 100 million, roughly 1.3% of the global population. This is tiny. For comparison, the internet hit 100 million monthly active users in 1997 and now is 5.6 billion (70%). While a stock market darling in the 1990s, It took Amazon till the mid 2000s to achieve sustainable product market fit.
• Crypto is still early, and most projects, including Reserve, haven’t yet achieved product-market fit. A liquidity boom cycle may lift activity and metrics temporarily, but the structural issues highlighted in this proposal could reappear even more sharply once conditions tighten again. Strengthening RSR health now, whether in a rising or falling market, prepares the ecosystem to endure and compound long term.

18. What are the benefits to each stakeholder group?

• DTF deployers: Launch faster and inexpensively on shared, secure infrastructure while staying neutral and independent, supported by a community that amplifies awareness and drives governance.
• Capital contributors (builders, partners, investors): Gain predictable funding, aligned incentives, and transparent coordination that make it easier to build, integrate, and invest with confidence.
• RSR holders: Benefit from greater transparency, stronger governance rights, and healthier fundamentals that make participation more meaningful and sustainable.
• Reserve companies (Confusion Capital / ABC Labs): Gain motivated talent and positive energy that drive faster progress, sharper feedback, and global advocacy for the Reserve brand. Decentralization brings energy from the sidelines onto the field, reinforcing a shared sense that we’re all in this together.
• Unbanked, underbanked, and everyday people: As DTFs grow and stabilize, they can expand access to reliable, inflation-resistant money for people whose savings lose value too quickly today. DTFs could offer a more stable alternative to fragile local currencies, giving communities everywhere a fairer way to save, transact, and participate in the global economy. But only if we succeed.

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading. I’m doing my best to move the conversation forward with the limited information and perspective I have.

Sharing your thoughtful questions, critiques, or commitment for how YOU will contribute if this proposal advances will help move everyone forward together.

And if you see something I’ve missed, especially around what is Reserve’s edge, please share it here so we can all see a little further together.

[zduck]

I think the current situation leads to too much uncertainty which then leads to distrust. If you have a monkey on your back the easiest solution is to just get the monkey off your back. You can commit to transparency as to how it is allocated or put it to vote but ultimately the problem is still there staring at you. If burning it is what you need to do to just be done with it then I think that is what you do. You do it, it’s done, you never have to worry about it again. In this case, the simplest solution (compared to the commits required to move forward with allocation) really is probably the best solution.

[Rsr0x]

Hey everyone,

I’m fairly new to Reserve compared to some here but have been in crypto long enough to know that the healthiest projects decentralize early and transparently. After spending time reading about RSR’s token structure, I wanted to share a practical suggestion that could strengthen both governance and community alignment.

1. Targeted Airdrop to Long-Term Holders

Right now, RSR has a loyal core - some holders who’ve even been here since 2019/2020 and never dumped through all the volatility. That level of conviction is rare, if someone has held for 4–6 years, they’re clearly aligned with the mission and not here for a quick flip.

An airdrop in this case is unlikely to fall into the usual quick dump that most airdrops have become and will instead be a decentralization event into the hands of those most committed to the project’s future.

A portion of the team-held RSR could be redistributed to the longest-standing community members - especially wallets that have held since 2019 – 2020, or scaling according to the length of time held.

If someone has held through multiple cycles, they’ve already proven they’re in it for the long run. Those are exactly the kind of anti-fragile holders who should help steer governance; shifting power from centralized team wallets to the most committed participants.

2. Burn All Unused or Idle Supply

Any remaining portion of the locked or unallocated RSR that isn’t essential for the project’s future runway or liquidity should be permanently burned. This has been mentioned plenty of times and doesn’t need more justification. The team have more than enough liquidity from the unlocks so far, and if they cant do it with what they already have then I’m not optimistic about the future.

A burn makes the tokenomics cleaner, restores scarcity, and shows confidence that governance and value now sit with the community. In short:

BURN THE TOKENS IMMEDIATELY

3. Make the Team’s RSR Runway Transparent:

It would help to see clear data on:

• How much RSR is reserved for operational runway,

• The estimated duration that covers, and

• What happens to the remainder once that period ends.

Transparency builds trust - especially before a major redistribution.

4. Establish a Community Governance Pool

A smaller share of the supply could be placed in a community-controlled structure (DAO-style multisig) to fund builders, contributors, and proposals voted on by RSR holders.

Would love to hear what others, especially long-term holders, think about making this kind of decentralization move. Thanks

[sonnyjune]

RSR health and community engagement are both essential and compound onto each other. Something I would like to do is create more thoughtful Reserve/DTF memes to circulate on twitter as that is something that helps with identity/culture, humor/positivity, and understandable visuals. I’ve made some casually in the past for Rigatoni culture but would be happy to contribute more intentionally with whatever the current community/Reserve narrative might be. Unfortunately my skillset doesn’t lend itself to being too meaningful in more technical ways and I’m not a large enough investor to make a big difference in governance, but I’d want to contribute where I can to engage existing community and attract new community. Token health must be made more ideal for community efforts to truly stick though, I feel confident of that from what I’ve seen over the past 6 years I’ve been tuned in to Reserve.

[DollarQuestion]

Aside from the supply questions, there seems to be genuine interest in the community about how efforts could be best directed. I’ve been around since Jan 2021 and, for whatever reason, have felt compelled to add my voice through content and small contributions. It’s been great to be compensated for some of that work, but I’ve also made plenty of videos on my own when I see gaps in audience understanding or areas worth emphasizing about the protocol.

Beyond the potential upside for holders as awareness grows, I think there’s a clear benefit in building some kind of structure for community contributors to create and collaborate, with the possibility of reward based on a mix of team and community discretion.

I’ve been happy to this point to make stuff and sometimes get paid, sometimes not. Since it’s not my main gig it’s great for my own edification when I have time. But if we’re talking about getting a big group of people rowing in the same direction, I think a well thought out system with community input could go a long way. I understand the need for total control as far as official content for brand consistency, legal, messaging etc, but an “unofficial” or “semi-official” pipeline might bring a good combo of insider and outsider perspective.

[R72]

I am fully supporting this. Around since (end of) 2021 as well and, in my own way and with the time I have available, contribute in various ways ever since: moderating Discord and Telegram channels, helping people understand the protocol from a ‘user’ perspective, did some onchain analysis regarding a couple of slashing events, recently started to embrace Dune dashboards to (hopefully) provide new insights. It’s been quite uncoordinated and best-offort driven, but I like to think it makes a bit of a difference, just as a lot of community members have done and are doing. There is so much unlocked potential that is ready to step up and look for additional ways to support Reserve in its mission. I understand the balance and trade-offs Reserve (and in particular Thomas and Nevin) are having to make in responding to this thread. I genuinely believe Reserve does not aspire to steer the Reserve ecosystem in a very centralized manner. And yet the current way of RSR unlocking points exactly in the direction of ever increasing centralization. Team-controlled wallets have (and will have even more so in the future) the power to override each and everyone in governance proposals. That in itself is detrimental and must be changed. Perhaps Reserve sees a potential role for the community to step in and is struggling to see the community can be trusted with such a big responsibility. It for sure does not help when people blindly shout that 30B ‘just need to be burned’, without thoughtful analysis and even name-calling and swearing. I just wanted to leave this insight here for the Reserve team: the community may not always be (or come across) as thoughtful, to be trusted, capable of taking more responsibility for the Reserve ecosystem, but there surely are 10-20 people really looking forward to help you solve the unlocking and decentralization challenges. We’re here, ready to help, willing to spend (even more) hours. It is up to you to consider the value of our offer and commitment.