Call For Reviewers - Rapid Research Incubation

The GMC is seeking volunteers to evaluate submissions for the Rapid Research Incubation bounty! In the last month, numerous community members have contributed top-notch ideas aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the Rocket Pool platform. We are in need of five individuals to assess these ideas and determine their overall value. If selected, reviewers will be given a document to submit their scores and commentary. The GMC has not guaranteed compensation for reviewers yet but they have shown interest in rewarding them through a retrospective award.

Bounty Details

Please reply on this post if you are interested or inquire with questions. Thanks!


An evaluation committee comprising a minimum of 3 members (preferably 5) will be appointed to assess the merit of each submission. The committee selection process will involve a combination of volunteers expressing their interest publicly and the GMC administrator reaching out for volunteers. The committee creation process is expected to last one week but can conclude at any time after the selection of 5 members. Members of the evaluation committee are ineligible for rewards from this specific bounty.


Each submission will be assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 in three categories: usefulness, innovativeness, and promising. The individual ratings in these categories will be summed to determine the overall score.



The practical value and applicability of a submission in addressing the objectives of remaining competitive with Lido’s staking options. Submissions that provide specific actionable recommendations, demonstrate a high level of practicality, and contribute effectively to addressing the specified issues would be considered more useful.


The degree of originality and creativity exhibited in a submission. A submission is deemed innovative if it introduces new and unique ideas or approaches, showcasing a departure from conventional methods. The evaluation committee will assess the extent to which the submission brings fresh perspectives, methodologies, or solutions to the table.


The potential for future success or positive outcomes associated with a submission. Submissions that are considered promising exhibit characteristics that suggest they could lead to significant impact or positive changes in the future. This may include factors such as the feasibility of the proposed ideas, their potential for high impact, and their alignment with technical and political considerations (pDAO).


The review process is scheduled to span two weeks following the formation of the committee. Submissions with the highest cumulative scores will be awarded as follows: $2,500 (1st place), $1,500 (2nd place), $1,000 (3rd place 3rd - 5th place). All other applicants will receive $250. In the event of a tie, ranked choice voting will be used from data collected in the ‘Favorite Applications’ section.

Further Notes

Highly prized qualities will be: specific actionable recommendations, high impact, innovation/uniqueness of ideas, persuasive discussion, evaluation of drawbacks/steel-man arguments, and feasibility from both technical and political (pDAO) standpoints.

Breakdown of Submissions

Total Submissions: 21

  1. NeverAnIsland - Built-In RPL pool
  2. Valdorff - MYSO Loans
  3. Valdorff - Rent or Stake
  4. Samus - Diverted Rewards
  5. epineph - Unsmoothing Fee/lottery fee
  6. epineph - Universal Variable Commission
  7. epineph - Jaws of life- dynamically valuing RPL
  8. epineph - Penalties revamp
  9. epineph - RPL bond sliding scale
  10. epineph - Preferential queue for higher ETH bonded minipools
  11. epineph - Medipools
  12. epineph - Pre-signed exit messages/reusable minipool contract
  13. epineph - No-commission minipools
  14. zesty - Collateral Requirements Removal
  15. Valdorff - Direct Capture
  16. Valdorff - Bond Curves
  17. sckuzzle - Value Accruing Options
  18. ArtDemocrat - rETH Protection
  19. Luominx - No RPL minipools
  20. Occam - No RPL megapools
  21. DagoDuck - Priority deposit pool (late entry)

Check out the community input post here.

Edit: Given the amount of submissions, the time to review has been updated from one week to two weeks.

Edit 2: This is for the next step of research. The job does not include checking the math/modeling. High level thinking if things are directionally sensible is good.

1 Like

I would be interested in volunteering


Would be willing to volunteer too if called upon!


I’d be up for participating here.


I’m happy to help if required.

I would love someone from the team to join this.

1 Like

Also happy to take a look. I was initially a little worried these would require more RP knowledge than to engage with than I have. But, having skimmed the submissions I’m confident I can do it justice.

I do think the ‘usefulness’ and ‘promising’ rubrics have a fair bit of overlap. I expect I would find it easier to assess on those if they were better differentiated, or combined.

If we need an additional rubric, perhaps ‘simplicity’? Simplicity could include elegance of concept, ease of communication, estimated ease of implementation, number of existing systems affected etc. All these feel important, given that before they can deliver utility, research ideas must be:

  • Converted to actionable items.
  • Communicated to the DAO effectively for voting
  • Communicated to the development team effectively for implementation.
  • Implemented by the development team.

In most cases, each of those bullets will be easier when the underlying idea is less complex.


I am putting myself and @kane forward as potential reviewers.