Many thanks to these five and anyone else who volunteered for such an important task!
The review process, which is comprised of feedback within the ‘Options Thread’ within Discord, will follow this document:
A three-day window has begun where reviewers can discuss and request adjustments or revisions to the process. The deadline to finalize the process document and review sheets is January 22 at 1:00AM UTC. Upon finalization, the contents of the process document will be posted in this thread.
Reviewers are asked to use the following Review Sheet for their scores and feedback (by making a copy):
Reviewers will be given 14 days following the finalization of the process to submit their scores. February 5 at 1:00 AM UTC is the final deadline.
There will be an RSVP sent out for a 1 hour optional discussion call for reviewers.
Questions can be posted here, but for more of a back-and-forth format and speedier responses, I encourage the reviewers and the community to continue the discussion within the ‘Options Draft’ thread within the Rocket Pool Discord. Discord
There were no requested revisions to the process during the revision period, and so the procedure below will be used:
Rapid Research Review Procedure
An evaluation committee comprising a minimum of 5 members has been appointed to assess the merit of each submission. The committee selection process involved a combination of volunteers expressing their interest publicly and the GMC administrator reaching out for volunteers. The committee creation process lasted around one week. Members of the evaluation committee are ineligible for rewards from this specific bounty.
Scoring
Each submission will be assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 in three categories: utility, innovativeness, and simplicity. The individual ratings in these categories will be summed to determine the overall score.
Rubric
Utility
Innovativeness
Simplicity
Utility
The practical value, applicability, and potential for future success of a submission in addressing the objectives of remaining competitive with Lido’s staking options are crucial. Useful and promising submissions provide specific, actionable recommendations, demonstrate a high level of practicality, and exhibit characteristics suggesting they could lead to significant impact or positive changes in the future. Factors contributing to their combined value include the potential for high impact, and alignment with technical and political considerations (pDAO).
Innovativeness
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.
Simplicity
The elegance of concept, ease of communication, estimated ease of implementation, and consideration of the number of existing systems affected. These aspects are crucial as, before research ideas can deliver utility, they must undergo the following processes:
Conversion to actionable items.
Effective communication to the DAO for voting.
Clear communication to the development team for implementation.
Successful implementation by the development team.
Schedule
After the announcement of the committee, a three-day period will occur where the review committee can review the process and request adjustments and revisions. Following that process review period, the review process of submissions is scheduled to span two weeks following the formation of the committee. An optional discussion call will take place within that two week period.
January 22, 1:00AM UTC - Review process and request adjustments / revisions deadline
TBD - Optional 1 hour discussion call
February 5, 1:00AM UTC - Review submissions and submit scores deadline
Awards
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.
Review Instructions
Reviewers are asked to make a copy of the sheet below for entering their feedback and input:
Reviewers are requested to assess each submission in a random order, in the event that feedback can not be provided for every submission by the deadline. This approach prevents the first submissions from being guaranteed more scores than others.
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.
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.
epineph has chosen to exclude all of his submissions from being eligible for compensation; nonetheless, we would appreciate the committee’s analysis and review of his work.
After completing the scoring sheets, reviewers are welcome to share and publish them here. A full compilation of the scores and a final report will be created after the deadline.
- * Valdorff has two application awards pending an internal GMC vote for approval.
A total of $8,250 - $8,750 will be rewarded to submitters in the upcoming weeks.
The GMC extends its gratitude to the submitters for their exceptional work and contributions, which will ultimately enhance the Rocket Pool protocol. Additionally, heartfelt thanks are due to the reviewers whose diligent efforts, investing hours in meticulously analyzing submissions and evaluating them, have been invaluable.