In the past few months, _ has been watching the impact of the latest retro PGF round for Optimism and how this has created a massive increase in incentivization, innovation, and community engagement within the Optimism ecosystem.
We want to see this impact delivered to other projects, and given the relationship between _ and RocketPool, we want this post to start a community discussion on running a similar round for RocketPool.
The reason that we bring this forward is to be able to reward the builders and community members who have utilized the RocketPool protocol already and help to show people who are considering starting to contribute that the DAO may continue to incentivize this value provision in the future!
Here’s the article where these ideas are outlined in more detail and where different strategies for distribution and voting are outlined, obviously each protocol is different and we should take purposeful steps to make sure each retroPGF round is as high impact as possible.
So with that said, how could we maximize impact to RocketPool with a retroPGF round, and what considerations should we make as we build out a proposal for this idea.
Why or why not?!
This post aims to serve as a conversation starter around retroPGF mechanisms and how they could be applied to the RocketPool community. If you’re interested in joining this discussion please post your thoughts below and we can build a discussion from there!
Rewards for past contributions by projects & community members given retroactively sounds like a refreshing idea, perhaps rather than voting on each individually we could vote to elect a committee to review such applications.
Rocket Pool already does retroactive awards trough the GMC. You can learn more about it from the RPIP.
General feedback for Fireeyes/Wildfire: Spend some time engaging with the DAO. That includes reading and responding to other forum threads and joining conversations in discord. This makes sure that you aren’t proposing things that are already happening or don’t make sense for some other reason.
For example, there have been numerous conversations about rocket pool tokenomics over the last 2+ years. Fireeyes came up with the original design and some participation from them would have been useful.
Personally, the combination of lack of engagement plus these type of posts that feel templated come off as spam and make it hard for me to even engage with the content.
Rocket Pool has being doing retroactive public goods funding since February 2023. Over 19k RPL (> $500,000) has been awarded. In fact, the latest round results were announced yesterday (here). All awards can be seen in this spreadsheet which can be found in the treasury report that was most recently published yesterday. There are monthly application threads on the DAO forum and the awards are decided by an elected Grants Management Committee (GMC) and the pDAO can dispute them, see RPIP-26.
Not knowing this by someone who claims to have a relationship with Rocket Pool is inexcusable.
One great way to rebuild the Rocket Pool/FireEyes relationship would be if you have a copy of the original tokenomics white paper explaining some of the initial recommendations. I would be very interested in seeing it.
Woooo! We LOVE a good discussion - let me start by tytyty for all the responses!
+1+1
+1 to the committee discussion in terms of how rewards could be distributed.
Well! this was a lovely supportive post! But now it’s gone!?
Almost all projects have done retroactive rewards - what we’re talking about here is a significantly more open and interesting approach to grants. CC: Optimism distribute grants in many different ways the RetroPGF rounds are highest impact by a margin.
Strange message, especially from someone on the Incentive Management Committee!
Firstly, luckily i have spent a decent chunk of time reading the forum and discord - I didn’t see any information that a retroPGF round was happening or it doesn’t make sense. Me sharing this (specifically to RocketPool and other tokens) was about purposefully selecting tokens where a retroPGF would be highest impact.
We’re an open resource on this, happy for core team, network participants, or discord humans to reach out at any time, obviously, we can’t promise constant engagement - But we’re incredibly aligned with RocketPool and more than happy to contribute to these conversations at any point.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with Fire Eyes but we’ve been busy pushing Ethereum, DAOs and tokens forward constantly. Having constant conversations about the highest impact moves different projects could implement to position themselves and the industry in the best possible way.
Being constantly engaged with any of the communities FireEyes has helped foster and deploy is an impossible task. But that shouldn’t discount us from contributing meaningful ideas; RocketPool is incredibly well positioned to launch a retroPGF round, with many technical and community contributors we could incentivize continuous contribution to the RocketPool DAO/technology.
LOVE the enthusiasm for Rocketpool and defending its grant honor! I’m in-fact fully aware that the Grants Committee has been distributing grants. What the article proposes is setting up a different way for these grant applications to be gathered and a wider (more interesting!) way for them to be distributed.
All large token DAOs have a grants committee - what we’re talking about here is a specific program where a wider group are encouraged to apply and we can promote the ‘round’ within the entire Ethereum ecosystem (just like Optimism has a grants committee too!).
Again, RocketPool is incredibly well positioned to be the second project to follow in Optimism’s footsteps, as well have Gitcoin assemble a lot of the technology needed.
Being able to launch this type of round is exactly what RocketPool needs as new staking solutions, DVT technology (imo there’s a real risk to RocketPool here) and other incentives move into this space.
The GMC has funded 90 projects totaling over $750k at current token prices. The GMC currently allocates funds for public goods, factoring in its overall budget during the allocation process. However, the GMC’s budget is not infinite and cannot accommodate an unlimited number of requests for funding public goods. I don’t see the value in inviting public goods funding requests outside of our normal channels and process.
As said above, grants committees aren’t new, and thinking about how we can experiment with a wider set of incentives/narratives makes significant sense for the current market position of RocketPool.
‘Unlimited number of funding requests for funding public goods’ ? Not sure if you read the article but this isn’t about funding public goods, it’s about funding RocketPool initiatives, code, humans and community.
Not sure if you read the article but this isn’t about funding public goods
Given the limited context relevant to the Rocket Pool protocol and without formally addressing the committee we already have in place, I believe many of us assumed you were focused on the public goods side of it (or at least we assume that is the primary benefit RP would get out of it).
I’d recommend coming back with a proposal that acknowledges what we already have in place.
Well! this was a lovely supportive post! But now it’s gone!?
Thank you for the kind words. Alas my post was not lovely and easily read as snarky and impolite. It was a particularly inappropriate response to someone who means well and I do apologize for it.
what we’re talking about here is a specific program where a wider group are encouraged to apply and we can promote the ‘round’ within the entire Ethereum ecosystem (just like Optimism has a grants committee too!)
The GMC focuses limited funds for Retroactive Public Goods on research, information, resources and services that effectively support decentralized permissionless staking with a current strong lean toward Rocket Pool. The key components of this are:
Limited funds
Limited scope
Methodical consistent approach over a long time horizon
Knowledgeable on the ground decision makers
Having a separate Retroactive Public Goods Funding approach requires understanding the current Rocket Pool context. How will it be different and where will we get these separate funds for this different approach?
How will this approach be different than the existing Rocket Pool Retroactive Public Good Funding?
Will this _ retroPGF approach be a one off exercise to drive temporary excitement or engagement? An advert campaign mixed in with temporary good results. Kind of like that corporate team volunteering at a soup kitchen for a few hours during the holiday season posting to their instagram?
I see having a massive separate retroPGF as an interesting and lovely idea, but the idea is easy compared to the hard bits of actual commitment, coordination, and execution. The GMC is focused on its issues at hand, so who are we asking to do the actual work? And what exactly is that work we are asking them to do?
Designing overall approach for scope, funding, decision making, timing
Coordinating and aligning across various permissionless staking groups
Fundraising efforts
Promotion
Execution
Follow up result promotion
Some technology can help reduce the coordination effort needed for specific aspects, but such a large scope requires a signifigant human coordination effort. Who will be the Superphiz? Can we nail down the specific design and scope to make it easier for a Superphiz to volunteer many days of work just on execution?
Feels like right now we are hyping delivering a payload to mars without having considered how and by whom the rocket will be built much less who will fly it.
_