[ONGOING] OP-PIP-101: Community Council Term 2 — Election Result & Budget Approval

Proposals
1

Abstract

This proposal implements two actions:

  1. Council membership update: Replace bats4 with SCP, following the Community Council Election #2 results

  2. Term 2 budget approval: Transfer 4,000,000 PYTH (first 6-month cycle) to the Community Council from the Pyth DAO Treasury

Background

Per the Term 1 Exit Report, bats4’s seat was up for election. SCP won the community vote and will join the Council for Term 2.

The Term 2 Budget Request outlines an 8,000,000 PYTH budget over 12 months. This proposal funds the first 6-month cycle (4,000,000 PYTH).

Description

  1. Council Membership Change
Action Member Wallet
Remove bats4 ANDczJKcEmtZ8g26JnsNTFwpJiG13cNrjg1VDqdEQ1cK
Add SCP 3YTuW6tC1fWKVVxtubQjC2DZVv8GGNLni4Ko8UdiQiEo

The Community Council vault is DXf94qPHKbpx3KJ275ns4kBndaHTf4BMtC8GDUvBXM7j.

  1. Budget Transfer

Transfer 4,000,000 PYTH from the DAO treasury to the Community Council multisig:

  • From: 9HKkxg5dpqjUEW1U2r76SpQCH7uvDMciytNYxrpwMVNc

  • To: GKuPcXtNRJwZGrJ8tV25jSbLHZe71BUdUXVzjGLXkSt9

  • Amount: 4,000,000 PYTH

Implementation

The on-chain proposal will:

  1. Update the Council smart wallet signers (remove bats4, add SCP)

  2. Transfer 4,000,000 PYTH from 9HKkxg5dpqjUEW1U2r76SpQCH7uvDMciytNYxrpwMVNc (Pyth DAO Treasury) to GKuPcXtNRJwZGrJ8tV25jSbLHZe71BUdUXVzjGLXkSt9 (Community Council multisig)

Council members must adhere to the Code of Conduct

Onchain DAO vote: https://v2.realms.today/dao/PYTH/proposal/7erYsumMYV7EZcQ9o9ebhhQnxtvYtYzBth2GrgSbK8Wa

References

2 Likes
2

From April 2025 to March of 2026, we spent 3,670,655 PYTH on all marketing programs. How can we state that this has lead to greater adoption when the price of the token has fallen from approximately 0.40 cents to 0.04 cents. Now we are asking 8,000,000 PYTH from the DAO to spend on marketing more specificity, 6,000,000 PYTH for content creators equating to the whole amount of the DAO current reserve.

One of the purpose of conducting share buy backs in this case token buy backs is to reduce the pressure of dilution and improve EPS.

Since the marketing has shown not to be as successful as we thought it would be, should we be more careful with our spending and instead concentrate on letting the product speaks for itself i.e PYTH pro.

Someone creating a YouTube content or retwitting on X is not going to incentivise big institutions to pay 10,000 per month, rather the quality of the price feed will.

Maybe spending 10-15 % of the monthly DAO revenue on marketing would be a more sensible way of spending whilst increasing the DAO buy back reserve.

Spending less and building the reserve will help conteract the selling pressures from staking rewards and unlocks and give the price a chance to move in a favourable direction ?

2 Likes
3

I agree with 151.

At this point, I believe we need to start reducing excessive spending.

What institutions ultimately care about is Pyth’s performance, not the level of spending.

More importantly, the current reward structure needs to be fundamentally reconsidered.

The price decline has been significant.

Around 7M PYTH are distributed every month, while only about 2.7M PYTH are being bought back through Pyth Pro revenue.

This means roughly 4M+ PYTH per month can potentially enter the market.

To even reach a basic supply-demand balance,

buybacks would need to increase by at least 2–3x —

and that is not a condition for price appreciation, but merely for downside stabilization.

This creates continuous downward pressure on price,

and the prolonged decline we’ve seen so far reflects exactly that.

The market already understands this structure.

Without structural changes, positive developments are unlikely to translate into token price appreciation.

Pyth is clearly progressing as a data infrastructure platform,

but institutions can use Pyth Pro without the token,

which means the token remains largely disconnected from that growth.

At the same time, ongoing inflation continues to act as a structural headwind for price.

To those who benefit from the current system:

It’s understandable.

Rewards are continuously distributed, risks are relatively limited, and there is short-term yield.

However, one point needs to be made clear:

This structure does not support long-term token value.

And in a declining price environment,

the real value of those rewards will inevitably erode over time.

In other words,

maintaining the current structure is not preserving value —

it is gradually diluting the purchasing power of that value.

Structural change is uncomfortable.

But without change, the market will continue to reflect these imbalances in price —

just as it has been doing.

2 Likes
4

So just by merely trying to address the excessive spending of the DAO reserve got me banned from the Pyth network Discord channel.

What is the hidden agenda here and to be honest alarming?

So community members are not allowed to comment via discord when 8,000,000 Pyth are about to be spent? Isn’t this the whole ethos behind DAO governance?

2 Likes
5

Hey there,

How sure are you speaking up got you banned?
You probably did something else

Show proof if you think you are right

6

Go in the question section of the PYTH network Discord channel. Read everything that I posted which were all about Op 101 and tell me where did I faulter?

Why do we always assume something wrong was said or done without actual proof?

1 Like