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.
5 Likes
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
Tks for clarifying, we agree this is more of a grant than a bounty
Thanks, Tim. If you could do me two quick favors, that would be greatly appreciated! It looks like you posted your revised application in the Bounty page. If you could instead put it here in the grants thread, that would be awesome. I’d move it myself but I don’t have the permissions, I don’t think. After you do that, if you could delete your two posts in the Bounty thread that would help clean it up a bit. If it won’t let you, though, just let me know and I’ll get a mod to do it.
1 Like
Done, appreciate for helping
1 Like
Thanks! That does not meet the minimum 20 characters, so I’ll just say “thanks” again!
1 Like
Hi @calurduran 
No worries, rather thank you very much for the explanation: I appreciated the fifty-foot paper mache orange rocket example a lot 
I have deleted my reply in the Bounty Applications thread and wrote a new application in the one dedicated to Grants.
1 Like
Thanks Fuliggine, both for re-posting and deleting the old one!
1 Like
I would like to expand what @peteris requested in https://dao2.rocketpool.net/t/january-2023-gmc-call-for-retrospective-award-applications-deadline-is-january-15th/1337/7?u=valdorff
My suggestion would be to 2x reimburse the ETH spent on gas by every address (2*2.1451 ETH ~= 215 RPL). These people selflessly spent their own money to help improve the user experience.
I would also suggest that @peteris should be given a small honorarium for doing the work and deploying the contract. I’d suggest 25-50 RPL.
2 Likes
Opinion on the Stereum grant: Validators are not the average users of ETH, they are infra providers, that need to be able to handle unexpected issues. I think making it “one click” is a negative, not a positive.
I'd like to read more
I agree creation and management should be easy and smooth - but! You must keep abreast of things. If an update in your Linux distro blows things up unexpectedly, if your execution client releases a critical update between smartnode releases, if your server is fried by a power surge, etc - you must be able to respond. You don’t need to know everything ahead of time, but you need to be willing to learn, spend time on it, and get things working well.
If web3 gets the same use as web2, that’s about 5 billion people. If 50% of ETH is staked and every validator is a separate human (bad assumption), that’s under 2 million NOs. If each one was a totally separate user, that would be 0.04% of ETH users. Realistically, it’s much lower than that as a handful of huge entities account for the vast majority of validators. This is a specialist role. For context, about 0.27% of car drivers are mechanics.
@jasperthegovghost’s work and application speak for themselves. That said, the magnitude of Jasper’s impact is hard to get one’s head around. How valuable is such high-profile networking and high-impact marketing to a protocol like Rocket Pool? Companies routinely pay heavy-hitting executives obscene salaries to access their networks, without getting essays in the tens of thousands of words from them that are their own marketing campaigns.
I would caution this community against undervaluing marketing, which often happens in the Ethereum ecosystem. Read the stats in Jasper’s post, and think about how we got here (1M impressions in a month? 
).
All of that is to say that I believe the real value of Jasper’s contributions to Rocket Pool far exceeds what the DAO can afford. Thank you, Jasper, for putting your heart and soul into Rocket Pool!
2 Likes
Hi @FeelingoodFeelingrt I just read through your retrospective award application here. I’m struggling a bit with it because it seems to slightly be a retro. award application (for the educational material) but much more concretely is a grant application for future work, e.g. a donation to the future mininode campaign. As such, I’d probably recommend instead filling out a grant application here. It has a slightly different set of application questions, but much of what you’ve already written will be applicable. After you do that, if you could delete your retro. award application (assuming you agree with my interpretation that the funding ask is for work that has yet to be done, e.g. spinning up a node) that would be great. Thanks!
Thing1: I think RP does too much public goods funding for its current growth stage, so I’m against this.
Thing2: this seems a very convoluted way to do it. If we want to use treasury money to give to ultrasound, why not just give them treasury money?
If it’s for the benefit of creating a long term funding source, why have a 3rd party control it? Seems like we could simply set the withdrawal address to the GMC multisig, node wallet seed could be held by both a trusted NO to run the thing and the GMC to make the initial deposit in a FB bundle so that no trust is needed at all.
4 Likes
I agree with Val. In addition, the GMC goals and scoring rubrics don’t seem to cover public goods funding currently. RPIP-15 certainly has room for it, but I think it would be hard for the GMC to evaluate grants that propose to produce something for Rocket Pool versus public goods funding with what has been established so far. I think a fourth category and scoring rubric, maybe as well a dedicated budget would be helpful here.
1 Like
Hihi @qz-clrfund! Saw your grant application and wanted to ask a few questions:
- it looks like you’re asking for a GMC matching fund - are you also asking for payment for dev/maintenance? Either way, saying so explicitly would be great.
- what do you think about timing?
- This is our first GMC round, so I’m a little worried people might be “overloaded”. On the other hand, I could see the argument for trying different avenues early on to see what the community engages with.
- for previous rounds, did the communities have parallel grant systems also? If so, were they new or longstanding?
- what’s the advantage of doing this standalone vs on gitcoin directly? Is it mainly that matching funds can be constrained to RP?
- What trust assumptions are needed? Would the GMC be able to distribute directly to avoid an intermediate holding group?
1 Like
Thanks @ilk.eth for the grant application. I was a little unclear as to what the 7700-word document was that you were proposing to translate. Sorry if I missed that in the application - I’m doing a quick first scan of them as they come in.
1 Like
hey @calurduran thanks for the prompt review, and your interest in clarification of the source content definition.
The response to your question is included under ‘Payment and Verification’ - ‘What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much RPL and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?’.
And the response is as follows: The proposed work covers translation of the ‘Introduction’ part under ‘Overview’ section of Rocket Pool documentation website.
Well, I see now that it definitely is not the perfect section to define the source content. And I am pretty sure about the answer but still want to ask this absurd question just in case (pls blame it on my inexperience): Are we allowed to edit our proposal for revising the content in question here?
Thank you so much!
1 Like
Thanks! I don’t think we can allow editing after the deadline, but there’s certainly nothing stopping you from clarifying anything you’d like in this thread (which I assume most committee members will read).