Appeal of GMC decision on Rocket Pool University - Poll

Community Poll on an appeal of the GMC grant request for Rocket Pool University

During the last cycle, the GMC voted to not fund GA022310, Rocket Pool University, but to have it resubmitted next grant cycle. The main concern was that it seemed similar to a project being done by another group (but not being funded by the GMC), Rocket School by EVMavericks. This is likely due to me not fully realizing the other project’s existence and thus not communicating the differences in the projects.

I maintain that the two projects are distinct and do not/will not overlap. Thus, to potentially avoid becoming another retroactive grant, I wish to appeal the decision. This involves drafting an RPIP and moving to a community vote.

Below is the RPIP draft appeal. Please vote in the poll, taking into account my above explanation and the below RPIP draft, on whether I should attempt this appeal.

Thank you to @Valdorff, @ramana, and @knoshua for advice on this appeal.
This does not necessarily indicate their support of the content of the appeal.

This is a shell of the project. This is incomplete and the content/quizzes are not even close to finished yet (actually quiz one is mostly done, though the content is not). I would rather not have given this out, yet, but I feel it is necessary at this point to aid community decisions:

  • I think this should move to vote and believe this should be funded per appeal
  • I think this should move to vote and believe this should NOT be funded per appeal
  • I think this should move to vote and have not yet decided how I’d vote
  • I don’t think this should move to vote - I think the GMC’s suggestion to resubmit should be followed
  • I don’t think this should move to vote - other

0 voters

RPIP Draft

title: Rocket Pool University Grant Request Appeal
description: This vote is to appeal the rejection of GMC grant request GA022310, Rocket Pool University.
author: Dr Doofus (@DrDoofus-MD-PhD-DDS)
discussions-to: Appeal of GMC decision on Rocket Pool University - Poll
status: Draft
type: Meta
category (*only required for Protocol ):
created: 2023-05-15
requires (*optional):


This RPIP is an appeal to reverse the “no” vote on Grant GA022310, Rocket Pool University (RPU). RPU is a framework for hosting Rocket Pool oriented courses along the lines of the now-defunct Ethereum Studymaster course. Courses can be created by anyone, currently in the form of specifically formatted json file(s). A user (i.e., a connected wallet), reads through the lessons in a course and takes a quiz after designated lessons within that course. The user has limited chances to pass each quiz. Passing all quizzes for a course is required to obtain the POAP or potentially other digital certification. RPU, as specified in GMC funding request GA022310, also includes a “Basics of Rocket Pool” course designed to give a mid-level overview of the protocol, not from an implementation perspective, but from an academic perspective. The heart of this appeal is that the stated reason for rejection was the belief that this project might overlap another (non-GMC funded) project, which indicates a misunderstanding or incomplete communication of the two projects.


This appeal of the GMC decision, a “no” with request to re-file in the next round, is for the following reasons:

  1. The stated reason, that the project might be too similar to another group’s project (which is NOT being funded by GMC), indicates a misunderstanding of the two projects.
  2. GMC should not defer to other groups’ potential projects.
  3. GMC should encourage outreach and educational projects in earnest.
  4. This appeal lowers the request amount, potentially making it more in line with GMC budget.


The GMC SHALL fund this request for 140 RPL upon completion of the tasks as described in GA022310. If not within the budget capabilities, the GMC MAY distribute the funds over as long as four consecutive cycles.


Grant request GA022310, Rocket Pool University, covers:

Frontend, written in NextJS 13 with TypeScript and TailwindCSS
Wallet sign-in via rainbowkit and wagmi
Laravel Database for user course and quiz information storage
A basic “Introduction to Rocket Pool” course
POAP Delivery mechanism for course completion (might be manual at first)

The complete grant request, in its entirety, is available here:

Appeal Grounds Expanded

  1. The stated reason, that the project is potentially too similar to another group’s project (which is NOT being funded by GMC), indicates a misunderstanding of the two projects.

    The EVMaverick’s project,, is a potential video tutorial series on specific implementations of the Rocket Pool protocol. For example, “How to set up a node”. This content is very valuable but has no overlap with Rocket Pool University. RPU could host a video tutorial series, but it is probably overkill and not the ideal format for such a presentation.

    Rocket Pool University courses can certainly contain images, videos and graphics, but it is a primarily text based reading/testing framework with certification (likely in the form of POAPs) for overall concepts within the Rocket Pool ecosystem. The website is a framework to easily allow classes to be created by anyone on any topic. For example, discord support certification or explanations of how to find and use various links and resources, i.e. information that might be useful to return to to reference in text based format.

    As for content, the included and initial course, Basics of Rocket Pool, is not meant to replace the official documentation, it is an overview of the documentation; an easily digestible “quick start” version written from the ground up to give a different perspective on what parts are needed for novices to garner a quick but encompassing vision of the protocol, not a quick understanding of how to set up a node or minipool. In many cases, it references the docs and via the quiz teaches students how to reference them themselves.

  2. GMC should not defer to other group’s potential projects.

    I believe the GMC should be proactive in the funding and encouragement of community projects and not reactive to other groups’ prospective projects. I am aware that Rocket Pool’s EVMavericks are an influential subset of Rocket Pool and perhaps the GMC, so I understand that they are possibly an exception to this rule. Nevertheless, I feel it should be, in general, part of the mindset of the GMC to seekout more outreach anticipating success.

  3. GMC should encourage outreach and educational projects in earnest.

    It is important to offer several variants of education on the protocol, since people learn via many different methods. Expanding and encouraging alternatives is a tried and true teaching method in modern education. Furthermore, much of the language used in a large scale projects, like RP, tends to repeat obscure phrases and buzzwords that are confusing to newcomers and, all too often, much of the existing community. Different wordings and summaries can open up minds to concepts previously not fully grasped. This is something we should strive towards, not try to avoid.

    In addition, the GMC is sitting on unused funds. Knowing the GMC funds will be spent, encourages the community to create and innovate. If GMC grant funding seems unachievable, the opposite effect will prevail. In fact, this framework will allow others to easily put their content online for GMC funding without reinventing the wheel.

  4. This appeal lowers the request amount, potentially making it more in line with GMC budget.

    The original request was priced in line with what I would charge, in general, for this type of project. Having participated in many grant requests throughout the years, they are all different and unique beasts. Grants are odd in that you are asking someone to pay you for something they didn’t ask for and if they did would likely not have requested it via the method you are proposing.

    In light of this and because I want to do this project in the hopes it benefits the community (not just for the grant money). I am significantly lowering my proposal.

    Task: Website Framework
    Request: $5400 (120 RPL @$45)
    Comment: Although this is a large amount of work, I also understand that it is not a critical feature for the protocol, thus rate is not what I would normally ask.

    Task: Basics of Rocket Pool course
    Request: $900 (20 RPL @ $45)
    Comment: The course will consist of roughly seven lessons with subsections and seven quizzes of roughly ten questions each.

    Total: $6300 (140 RPL @ $45)

Backwards Compatibility

Not an issue for this RPIP

Test Cases

No protocol change request

Reference Implementation

Note that this is not in any way near completion. I would prefer not to have given this out, yet, but I feel it would not be fair to ask for a vommunity vote without giving a greater indication of what the project would look like:

Security Considerations

This is not a protocol change request


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

Not enough interest, in my opinion, to push a vote. Will let this die.