Certainly. I would actually say the broader “changing” tokenomics. That said, I think there’s still a path with talking to find common ground, a significant heads up or slow changes, requiring a supermajority, etc. LEB8s were a good example of significantly changing the protocol and tokenomics with broad support (though before snapshot).
Highest priority for me would be oDAO trust minimization, pDAO guardian trust minimization and (MEV) penalty rework. These are essential to protocol security and credibility.
Of those, work is in progress on oDAO and penalty rework. The pDAO guardian has had earlier discussions on this forum, but they stalled in the pre-Atlas crunch. I think it would be good to revisit this topic soonish.
Other considerations in no particular order:
The single minipool contract seems like a big win to me in mitigating one of the protocol weaknesses (gas costs.)
Deposit ETH on behalf of - if I understand correctly, another advantage would be further reduced trust in the hot node wallet. One of the only remaining windows of vulnerability is a compromised node wallet where an attacker waits patiently for a large ETH deposit intended for minipool creation to hit the wallet. This would eliminate that attack vector and limit funds required funds for the node wallet to operational gas costs only.
Forced exits is definitely something to keep an eye on; use cases could be MEV theft resilience (LEB4 and otherwise), removing outlier bad performance / dead nodes, and enabling novel use cases like minipools that run for predetermined duration (Saas?)
Big challenge is of course enticing node operators to willingly upgrade to subject themselves to this. Might only apply to new minipools unless we can find some carrot to bundle it with.
On the topic of RPL use cases, we should not go out of our way to shoehorn in new use cases just to drive additional demand. I do think it makes sense to make good on the initial vision of RPL-as-collateral; the proposed usage in the redesigned MEV penalty system fits well here.
RPL tokenomics remain a tough subject, as others have noted. The tokenomics we have are far from perfect, but we also can’t make rash changes to a pre-existing, steadily maturing protocol. So, any large changes should be carefully deliberated and, if accepted, preferably take effect over a longer period of time so people have time to adjust. We may also have to accept certain radical changes may not be achievable within RP as it is now and should be implemented in a RP v2. (This has been informally mentioned in Discord - I don’t see it listed here explicitly though, where does it fit in?)
Likely related - ossified rocket pool is a very interesting topic, but it does seem slightly early to start this. There are a lot of puzzle pieces that would have to fall into place first for Ethereum and Rocket Pool.
Personally like gas optimisation roadmap items for node operators as it improves APR and liquidity (able to claim more often for same overall costs).
I like the options that work towards minimising and ultimately eliminating ODAO, not because I don’t like ODAO but it seems it’s the centralised piece of RP which is contrary to decentralization values. However, I appreciate there’s probably some hard problems to solve for full working decentralization.
RPL tokenomics I think it’s ok as it is in the current growth phase. Changes introduce unexpected risks to NOs (bad). Eventually if the ETH validator count hits steady state it may be worth gradually turning down inflation or off all together.
On the topic of roadmaps in general:
- Who should own the Rocket Pool Roadmap?
- Who should execute on it?
- Should the Rocket Pool core team, pDAO, oDAO, IMC, GMC, etc. share one roadmap, or formulate roadmaps independently?
- Does formal alignment on strategic goals have value? Or is the ad-hoc, bottom-up approach to independently observing themes that emerge across various discussions ideal for the Rocket Pool ecosystem?
ODAO role - upcoming charter should help clarify
GMC and IMC - explicitly delegated to by the pDAO; if they see opportunity, they can propose it as community members ofc
Core team and pDAO is a challenging one. In the end, I’d suggest the pDAO are the source of authority, but core team spend dramatically more time on it. This means they might be in the right place to make some direction calls. In my ideal world, this looks like high level strategy going through pDAO (though ideas may certainly come from team), and relevant tactical decisions coming largely from the team. One model that might be relevant is https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/meta-proposal-for-a-watchtower-and-rewards-tree-change-process/1267?u=valdorff.
Totally agree. That is the aim of the roadmapping process. For the core team and pDAO to align on strategy so that we can both execute effectively. If we are aligned strategically then tactical initiatives become more obvious. It is a continuous process though, there are many opportunies for conversations (community calls, discord, chit-chat) but as @Valdorff mentioned we should have regular formal points where we can evaluate the strategy and pivot as needed.
In terms of marketing, we have always valued organic marketing over paid except where there is strategic timing. This has served us very well so far. We have an extremely effective community social platform, which is both responsive and word-of-mouth based. The best kind of marketing you can get.
If there are specific activities or campaigns that the community feel we should be running then please let us know and we can help to coordinate.
The core team agree.
We are dedicated to making Rocket Pool as trustless as technically possible. Some things we can do now others may take a couple of phases to achieve but we agree that this should be a focus.
Thanks. Going through this roadmapping cycle will be revealing so I suppose it would be prudent not to rush into formalizing too much too soon as long as progress and communication continue.
As far as marketing goes, I’m the furthest thing from an expert, and I raise the question because non-trivial marketing spend seems to be fairly typical even for small teams, and competition seems to value it pretty highly.
Lido July '22
As a recent NO with a small number of LEB8 (<5), I’d say that:
- We should continue to be aligned with ethereum ethos, allowing and enabling simple participants with a desktop or a powerful laptop to participate in the network
- avoid efforts that increase the risk of centralisation
This means prioritising:
- reduction of GAS fees on all operations: registering, voting, withdrawals, etc…
- don’t invest resources on things that will mostly benefit the big whales and that increase complexity: dirk-vouch being a example of such an idea.
- Improve ways of penalize BAD NOs that drive down the APR
- Could RocketPool also help decentralize L2s that open and ontop of ethereum? Could NOs also run L2 clients participating in the decentralization of L2 networks?
- Increase/Facilitate rocketpool operations that lower costs, improve APR and lower barrier to entry. (L2 interfaces, claim all ETH rewards, autostake)
- Lower oDAO rewards. Spend elsewhere or lower overall inflation
- Reduce duties that rely on oDAO where possible
Thanks a lot.
from a NO that runs all rocketpool from his linux server at home.
There is always a point in Star Wars movies where the final battle is shown on three fronts:
- The masses of troops trying to bomb a thing
- The special forces commandos trying to make it possible to bomb a thing
- The individual super-soldier trying to achieve victory, both physical and moral, that is beyond this one battle
This is because, as expert military tacticians and strategists, the Star Wars producers know that a successful campaign happens at several scopes, simultaneously.
It is the same with wars and movies, as well as, business and software protocols.
Projects that have not properly planned for the future (Blockbuster) or that put too much emphasis into the future without shoring up what they had (Pets dot com) risk getting rekt. Whatever the next stops on the roadmap, we might be wise to hit on three fronts:
These include the options I would choose to work on from these categories.
These likely provide second order growth effects, but are foremost about shoring up current weaknesses.
- oDAO Dependence Reduction
- Updated Branding and Website
- New Testnet Deployment (kind of no-brainer, here)
This is where we put the impetus to achieve the funding goals developed in previous growth development.
- rETH marketing and value improvements (including a real push for easily accessible boilerplate answers to common criticisms to rETH). Community marketing is huge, but we might be needing something a little grander, too.
- Gas reduction updates (single contract minipools, etc.)
- High Level and eventual Co-Protocol Decentralized Marketing Campaign specifically targeting Lido’s size
Often called version 2, etc. This is where we are forward looking in varying degrees for how we position ourselves in the longer term. What happens when NOs start to taper off (eventually, they will)? What happens as we approach 15% of ETH staked?
- Forced Exits
- Single Contract Minipools
- DVT / Dirk+Vouch integrations (might improve efficiency?)
- Advanced RPL use cases (very long term, but I’d be interested to see ideas on using RPL to jumpstart competitors as RP reaches maximum size… max size does not mean there is not still growth potential in ways that are safe for the blockchain).
Some of these are developing into Roadmaps of other projects, like Node Set, which is great. We should be wary, however, of ignoring one of these categories ourselves, lest we find ourselves looking like Yoda, who for all his training, apparently skipped upper body day at the gym and found himself, and the universe, hanging in the balance, literally, by his fingertips and failed to rise to the occasion.
I agree with @Valdorff’s point. The pDAO should be the ultimate authority to approve the high-level strategy. However, I strongly believe that giving the core team some level of autonomy is important for the protocol’s success. It allows us to be agile, responsive, and explore new possibilities. Plus, it keeps the team motivated and satisfied with their work.
Internally, we’ve been fostering a culture of collaboration, actively involving the community and talented individuals in our design process. We’ll continue to embrace this approach and expand it as we move forward.
I would like to propose weighing RPL rewards by attestation performance.
While generally node operators are incentivized to have good attestation performance by the ETH rewards, this would further do so, and might result in a nice boost to the rETH APR.
It’s great to see Rocket Pool address the core team and DAO alignment head-on. The Post Atlas Roadmap Doc has some significant initiatives, a few of which we feel are worth commenting on:
Previous research suggests that LSD holders have an appetite to use their staked ETH in DeFi strategies, and there is demand for LSDs in layer-2 ecosystems. Rocket Pool’s strength has long been its emphasis on technical protocol development and decentralization. A bigger focus on partnerships and L2 bridging could boost Rocket Pool’s brand recognition and liquidity. In DeFi, token liquidity is an inherent marketing instrument. A token product can only reach its users where it is liquid.
Optimizing rewards and funding across Node Operators, oDAO, and pDAO is essential for the long-term health of the DAO and the RPL token. We look forward to further research and analysis of the RPL supply, NO reward structure, oDAO reward structure, and the funding of pDAO initiatives. We also look forward to reviewing the recent oDAO RPL Emission proposals.
The removal of the guardian from the pDAO, in addition to discussions around the adoption of on-chain DAO governance, are encouraging and exciting objectives. The technical nature of Rocket Pool’s stakeholder class also presents an opportunity to explore modular on-chain governance options, such as DELV’s Council.
Council uses voting vault contracts that could verify members of the oDAO, pDAO, committee members, and token holders to hold specific on-chain governance permissions. Embracing robust on-chain governance infrastructure underlines Rocket Pool’s commitment to decentralization while strengthening its position against competitors to become the most decentralized LSD provider.
Transparency in roadmaps ensures core teams and DAOs can properly articulate goals, funding, priorities, and objectives; and empowers the community to identify holes in the strategy and tackle them independently. We look forward to Rocket Pool’s community discussion and consensus on the upcoming roadmap and how we can provide data or insights.
I scanned through most of the replies here, but I didn’t see anything specifically addressing maybe instituting some kind of Reputation system on node operators. Something that maybe incentivizes longevity and dependability through the reward system?
Something that might be incorporated in a larger reputation system throughout the Ethereum ecosystem?
Just my two cents.
Thanks for all you guys do!
What are you thinking of there? Tap into rated dot network in some way, then pro-rate RPL rewards below a certain threshold?
We are going to be NO contrained again in a few months tops. Shouldn’t somehow mitigating this be a top priority?
Very much agree with this.
rETH is a different beast. We can solve that issue when it arises with marketing, efficiency improvements, etc.
NO constraint is a real issue that takes time to solve, and it is our future. We need direction here no matter what else we pursue. If we stagnate, people forget about us and learn to forget about us which is worse.
one contract for all minipools - this seems like worthy research and I don’t see it in the RP Brainstorm list. If this concept is included in the topic of LEB4, that’s cool. Otherwise, I suggest opening up a card for this topic.
The assumption here is that an upgraded design with one individual contract would lead to a cheaper or better rETH user experience.
Nothing further constructive to share, just excited for what’s ahead. Thanks.
I think you have the order of operations backwards? The RP community brainstorm was an input to the team’s work, so this is more recent. That idea is primarily a gas savings concept, so the benefit is to NOs. Ofc, any benefit to NOs could be passed on to rETH via lower commission if desired, but that would be a further action.
Thanks for the clarification and your input. I did have it backwards. Nothing further to add.