GMC - Call For Past Valuations Feedback

Grants / Bounties
1

Hey Rocket Poolers!

We highly value the input and concerns expressed by the pdao regarding past valuations that have raised disagreements. We encourage you to share your thoughts and ideas below. We’re encouraging feedback of any level of detail you feel comfortable with—whether specific or more open-ended. Here’s some examples:

  • Are there certain categories of projects you believe are underfunded / overfunded?
  • Is there a certain project that you believe was underfunded / overfunded?
  • Anything else you can think of

We appreciate all the feedback!

1 Like
2

In general,

  1. The GMC should defer to its technical members to assess the scale of technical grants/bounties/RAs. We should aim to pay a competitive rate for engineering talent based on real world data, eg, existing contractors in the space and in traditional tech markets. I believe it falls to the GMC to establish guidelines for what this looks like.
  2. Bounties and RAs carry less risk for the GMC and the compensation should reflect that.
  3. Grants carry more risk for the GMC and the compensation should reflect that, with a portion of the payments unlocked as milestones are hit.
  4. RAs rewarding past contributions should allow stipulations for maintenance/future development. I don’t think, for instance, Rocket Scan should have to apply for a RA as well as a grant to cover past development and maintenance as well as ongoing costs respectively. Having separate applications leads to undesirable scenarios and duplicate work for the GMC.
  5. Bounties are my preferred form of GMC spending- they carry almost no risk, and allow a separate party from the author to deliver. As such, I think the GMC should have a standing bounty authorship bounty- Iff a bounty is approved and subsequently claimed by a party other than its author, the author should receive a relatively small reward for their work putting the bounty together. We need to be careful not to incentivize spam here, of course. The idea here being that authoring a bounty is a form of work for the protocol that is currently unrewarded.
2 Likes
3
  • We need to get more folks more active - our community is a strength and we need to figure out how to leverage it more.
  • Bonuses. Sometimes you pay for X and get X+1 in a grant or bounty. If we believe that happened, write them a quick RA and get them a bonus.
  • Governance!! Frankly, it’s too reliant on me right now. We need to help get people to write RPIPs, and do the feedback legwork (which often includes playing mediator). Maybe something like what patches suggested for bounties would work - an award based on successfully getting to vote and maybe another one for passing. Bonus idea might apply if it’s something arduous or controversial and well-managed or of high interest to the community.
  • Little things. Right now it’s quite a process, and the same process regardless of thing. I’d suggest a small stack get put on Arbi or Optimism and can be used for the things 10 RPL and less. I think Gnosis Safe can be used to set up rules? Maybe up to 2 RPL with 1 signature, ≤5 RPL with 2 sigs, or ≤10 with 3. (same GMC signers - not really on schedule). I’m thinking stuff like a half RPL tip as a thank you for a dune dashboard update, documentation cleanup, etc.
  • There’s some concern about spam and farming. Yes, this can be an issue. I suggest not worrying about it too much ahead though. If we hit the brakes before the accelerator… :man_shrugging:
  • +1 for technical stuff needs technical review. That said, I think you should feel free to use the community here. If you know patches has already read something, it’s a modest ask to do some Q&A “Is it accurate? Is it clear? Is there particular insight? How does it compare with otherThingYouKnowPatchesRead?”. And maybe this could get one of them small tips I mentioned :joy:.

Most of that is some version of “get people excited to be active community members”

3 Likes