January 2023 GMC Community Discussion of Submitted Applications

In order to keep the application threads clear of discussions (to make it easier for committee members to read and score them), please use this thread for any and all questions and discussions of Round 1 grant, bounty, and retrospective award applications.

I love the Rescue node and I think @Patches and @poupas (and co) are grossly undervaluing their own efforts. I do not believe $500 (25 RPL @ $20 RPL) is equitable pay for a month and a half of part-time work, even without considering second-order value the GMC might want to award.

I suggest some kind of dev base rate comparable with the professional developer ecosystem with a modifiable bonus rate determined by the value of the contribution.


On the @adalhi proposal can you talk a bit more about what areas you would hit? For example, would you analyze the cost efficiency of Rocket Pool’s bribing? Would you include a market analysis of RPL/rETH liquidity depth over time, wallet concentration, etc?

As a simple ‘treasury analysis’ we have covered.

Reg @ramana 's retrospective award for rocketarb I wanted to emphasize the huge positive impact of that work for RP. It not only allowed Node Operators to capture a huge amount of ETH but also was used to get the RP brand out there and is an important element for creating a virtuous cycle for RP (a new NO taking the arb and telling friends about the opportunity, etc).

Also, the main aspect that we need to consider is rocketarb role in defending the rETH peg, which is priceless for the protocol.

With that in mind, I suggest we consider a very good compensation for Ramana, and would be fair to think about a 10% payment of the value captured by NOs so far. (~22ETH)

The suggested value is not just reflecting dev hours, but acting as an incentive for people who create game-changing solutions like rocketarb.


Hey @jasperthegovghost

The core compenents of the reports would be : Revenues , Expenses and Treasury.

For the treasury part, my reports won’t go in details into what each DAO did with their treasury (such as the role of the treasurer already apointed). Each DAO will have a simple line item in these reports : oDAO treasury, pDAO treasury … The goal is to give the community a wholistic view about the treasury. There will be no overlap with other treasurers.

Other than the core components mentioned above, I will be tracking other relevant metrics to the DAO such as the liquidity of rETH & RPL as you suggested.

For wallet concentration, I’ll have to think about its relevancy to these reports more.

Community members can request the adddition of metrics to track, I’ll add them if they are relevant and data is available without major hassles.

Agree that $500 doesn’t touch the value of the rescue node. General question: can the GMC afford to pay contributors the full value of their contributions? If yes, awesome, if not, what’s the next best thing?

Based on a combination of things people have already said, both in this thread and on Discord over the past few months, I think people’s expectations of the GMC’s budget is going to far (possibly far far) exceed its actual capabilities.

I’d be curious whether people would, in general, prefer to see a priority towards fully compensating people for what their work might be worth, at the cost of having fewer awards given out. Or more awards, but perhaps with fewer folks getting true value for their contributions.

This comment from @Valdorff is targeted at pDAO stipends rather than GMC grants, but I think it’s a good starting point for thinking about what to do with a limited piggy bank.

In answer to the specific question about whether better rewards or more rewards are preferable in general, I would lean toward the latter to protect the volunteer spirit of the community. That said, I would like the GMC to ultimately make the call on a case-by-case basis about what is best for the protocol, taking great care to be transparent and clear that that is all they are doing (and not playing favorites).

At a base rate of $100, an inflation period of 3750 RPL at $20 can fund 9 part-time ‘employees’ concurrently. $75k is 750 work hours worth. At 20 hrs/week this is just over 9 people. I would not mind tempering these numbers a bit either. If we want part-time pay at ~50k/yr then we can double to 18 people. Seems very in our scope to be in this ballpark.


@lefterisjp - it seems like staking requires a premium subscription to Rotki (per both https://rotki.com/ and premium subscription | rotki)? This goes for ~$10 per month per user. If that’s correct, please list that under conflicts of interest – you are building a feature that will attract customers to your paid platform.

1 Like

I would like to request someone starts a simple weekly governance newsletter that covers all updates on the DAO forum and governance discord channel.

1 Like

That’s a fair point Valdorff!

We plan to open staking to all users, which is why we also make this grant application.

The difference between premium and free is going to be more about limits in the number of validators and maybe limiting of some views (total stats vs stats per day).

1 Like

Hi @lefterisjp, @DataNexus, @timlaimuoingin, @Fuliggine. As of right now, you are the four folks who have proposed a bounty. There seems to be some confusion about what is a grant and what is a bounty. I’ve added a clarifying note to the OP in both the grant and bounty threads, but wanted to tag each of you so that you could let me know if you believe your request would be more appropriate as a grant. The main difference is who is doing the work. If you are applying for something that you yourself (or you and a team) intend on doing the work for, that should be a grant. A bounty is like a prize - it’s the Rocket Pool pDAO saying “whoever completes this work first or best gets the bounty money”.

Some of your existing bounty requests seem more appropriate for grants, so I wanted to double-check (to be clear some do seem like true bounties). Our apologies for the confusion. It’s a new process, so we’re ironing out the kinks as we go. If you would like your request to be considered as a grant rather than a bounty, just say so here and we should be able to make that happen.


Hey @calurduran no need for apologies, completely understand that these things take time to iron out.

As also stated in our application our request is 100% a grant and not a bounty as we would like to also be the implementors of the work.

1 Like

That makes more sense. Ours would also be a grant proposal.

1 Like

Agree. Very cool and high value added by Ramana.

1 Like

More details regarding my proposal “Monthly Financial Reporting” :
Instead of monthly reports, I can make quarterly reports to decrease the costs for the DAO. The funding request is the same 1k USD (in RPL) per report.
Also, I can accept funding for one quarterly report as test run before a longer period engagement.

I would like to extend my support for Knoshua’s proposal at the given amount requested. There have been some concerns in the Discord about the dollar value requested, however, I believe it is a perfectly acceptable pay.

A theoretical framework for figuring out pay might be a base salary of $50/hr 20hr/wk with an optional increase up to $100/hr based on the impact of work. I cannot understate how important it is that we have a clearly defined pathway to remove power from the oDAO even if it is something that would require yet theoretical Ethereum core dev work. In my recently quite well received paper, I posited that the oDAO is one of our largest glaring weaknesses and it is telling how wish-washy I had to be in how we are planning to address it.

Further, if we are serious about reworking oDAO payment, the simplest and best way to do so would be to render the role defunct. In terms of importance to RP’s long-term viability, this is up there with DVT research.

Lastly, this kind of research requires extremely niche knowledge that would otherwise fetch a much higher salary. I believe Knoshua’s skills and unique perspective on this issue are worth at least double what he is asking and if we follow the previous pricing schema, I believe it is affordable for the overall protocol.


100% agree with everything @jasperthegovghost said. Here’s the proposal, for anyone looking: January 2023 GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is January 15th - #8 by knoshua

1 Like