Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7

Grants / Bounties
,
1

This thread is for applications for Rocket Pool’s March 10, 2024 - April 7, 2024 bounties. Please only post bounty applications in this thread. If you would like to discuss and/or ask questions about any applications you see in this thread, we ask that you do so in this separate forum thread which has been established for all community discussions related to this round of applications. Only those grant applications that are posted in this thread and timestamped by April 7, 2024 at 23:59 (11:59 PM) UTC will be considered. Any bounties posted after that deadline will be carried over to the next award period.

This is the expected schedule for round 11:

  • Application Period (March 10th - April 7th)
  • Negotiation Period (April 8th - April 22nd)
  • Scoring Deadline (April 23rd)
  • Final Voting Amendments, Discussion and Finalization (April 24th - April 27th)
  • Award Announcement (April 28th)
Differences Between Grants and Bounties Grants are intended to be applied for by those who are wishing to carry out the work themselves. Bounties are open-ended goals that could be met by anyone, including those other than the proposing party. In other words, if I believed that Rocket Pool needed a fifty-foot paper mache orange rocket for publicity purposes and I wanted to be the one to built it, I would apply for a grant. If I instead thought Rocket Pool needed a fifty-foot paper mache orange rocket for publicity purposes but I wanted it to be open to whoever built it first to claim the reward (similar to a prize), then I’d apply for a bounty.

To guide you in your application, the GMC has established the following goals and the following scoring rubric:

GMC Goals

Grants, bounties, and retrospective awards should make it easier and/or more attractive to do one or more of the following:

  • become a node operator

  • operate a node, mint rETH

  • hold or use rETH

  • improve the quality of life for the protocol and its community.

Bounties Rubric

When evaluating grant applications, the GMC takes into account the following goals:

  • If the bounty is completed successfully, to what extent does it further the GMC goals?

  • To what extent is it likely that the bounty can be feasibly claimed/completed successfully?

  • If the bounty is successfully completed, how large is the benefit to the protocol relative to the size of the proposed costs?

Bounty Proposal Template

Guidelines

  • The goals of the Bounty Proposal are:
    • to communicate your bounty idea clearly, in general terms, such that the GMC can decide if it’s worth pursuing.
    • to estimate the benefits and costs attached to your proposal.
    • to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Answers to the template questions do not need to be highly detailed. Estimates or ranges are acceptable. Brief answers are also fine.

Template

# Bounty Name

## General Information

### What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

### Why are you writing this bounty proposal?


## Benefit

<please enter N/A where appropriate>

| Group | Benefits |
|---|---|
| Potential rETH holders | If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help people looking to stake ETH for rETH? |
| rETH holders | If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help rETH holders? |
| Potential NOs |  If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help people looking to run a Rocket Pool node for the first time? |
| NOs | If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help people already running a Rocket Pool node? |
| Community |  If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help the Rocket Pool community? |
| RPL holders |  If the bounty is successfully completed, how does this help RPL holders? |

### Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?



## Work

### What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

### What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

### Should the output of this bounty be available under an open source license?



## Costs

### How much do you think the completion of this bounty worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

### How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?


## Structure

### How would you structure this bounty, and why? 
* A single payout to single team on completion? 
* Divided into milestones? 
* Multiple payouts to multiple teams? 
* Should this be written up as multiple bounty definitions?
* Something else?

### Is this bounty repeatable?

### Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?


## Conflicts of Interest

### Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

### Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

Bounty Definition Template

Guidelines

  • When a single proposal bounty proposal has parts that must be completed by different groups, it should become multiple definitions.
  • Where reasonably possible, bountiy definitions should limit the number of distinct skillsets required for completion of the bounty.
  • Bounties should be defined in terms of the smallest worthwhile unit of work. IE: $25 to add/update a single relevant FAQ question rather than $5,000 to update the FAQ.
  • Include any information or resources that might reasonably help a bounty hunter complete the bounty.
  • Think carefully about which tasks are required, and which can be optional.
  • Clearly list any dependencies, if the bounty cannot be completed in all circumstances.
  • Only include multiple milestones for large bounties with natural points of division.

Template

# Bounty Name 

## Data
* Repeatable?
* Expiring?
* Skillsets for completion? (See existing bounties and reuse where possible, new skillsets are recommended if sufficiently distinct)
* Relevant tags? (See existing bounties and reuse where possible, new tags are recommended if sufficiently distinct)
* Min reward (USD)?
* Max reward (USD)?
* Any linked definitions? (e.g. if a single bounty proposal becomes multiple definitions.)
* Any dependencies? 

## Summary 
Short 1-3 sentences describing the bounty.

## Dependencies
Is there anything that must happen (outside of a bounty hunter's control) before it is possible to complete this bounty? This may be other bounties that must be completed first, an upcoming event or change or a regular occurance that triggers a valid bounty. This section is optional. May be later removed from the definition if the dependency becomes permanently met. 

## Required Milestones
What _must_ be completed for a bounty hunter to claim some amount of bounty. Described per milestone.

### Milestone A - <Name of Milestone>
**Payout: ** <payout amount>
Clear bulleted list or subheadings covering the items that must be completed and/or adhered to for this milestone to be valid.

### Milestone B - <Name of Milestone>
**Payout: ** <payout amount>
Clear bulleted list or subheadings covering the items that must be completed and/or adhered to for this milestone to be valid.

### Milestone C - <Name of Milestone>...

## Optional Milestones
What tasks _may_ be completed for a bounty hunter to earn extra bounty rewards. Described per milestone. This section is optional.

Optional milestones may be less strictly defined than required milestones. You may aggregate multiple minor considerations that would contribute to a payout. 

### Milestone D - <Name of Milestone>
**Maximum Payout: ** <maximum payout amount>
Clear bulleted list of the items that would contribute to payout for this milestone.

### Milestone E - <Name of Milestone>...


## Further Notes
Anything you think that would be beneficial for a bounty hunter to know when working on this bounty. Maybe be divided into subsections as needed.

## Resources
Links to repositories, web pages, forum discussions, etc. Anything that the bounty hunter may be able to use to do a better job on the bounty work. 

## Contacts
Individuals that have agreed to act as contacts for this bounty. Include usernames + contact details for any platform on which the contact is willing to respond to requests. Any contacts are expected to fully understand the bounty definition. This section is optional. 

Contacts:
* MAY be eligible for incentives.
* SHOULD NOT assist the bounty hunter directly with the bounty work.
* SHOULD assist bounty hunters via feedback, direction and oversight upon request.

## Verification
Who is expected to verify that the work delivered meets the relevant milestones? This person or group must have agreed to do this in advance of this definition being published. This person or group should have any relevant skillsets needed to properly verify the bounty work.
2

RPIP Feedback Contribution

General Information

What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

The idea here is to reward individuals for contributing useful (as judged by the RPIP author) feedback to an accepted RPIP in a forum setting.

Why are you writing this bounty proposal?

Feedback on RPIPs is extremely valuable. It challenges the author, and almost always leads to RPIPs that are more clear and better thought out.

It’s currently hard to get feedback on most RPIPs, especially when they concern issues that are not central to the community. One can argue this is good, and that the community should not be spending time on what they aren’t interested in, but I think this is shortsighted. Some RPIPs are important without being interesting, and it can be more important to get robust feedback on these.

Benefit

Group Benefits
Potential rETH holders No direct benefit.
rETH holders Indirect benefit of more thoroughly vetted proposals that may affect rETH.
Potential NOs No direct benefit.
NOs Rules and structures that have had wider and more varied input are likely to be better suited to what the community wants from their DAO. More effective feedback may make it easier for voters to understand the tradeoffs within a proposal.
Community Rules and structures that have had wider and more varied input are likely to be better suited to what the community wants from their DAO.
RPL holders Indirect benefit of better rules and structure within the RP DAOs, potentially contributing to a higher valuation of RPL.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?

Other DAOs can learn by example, and adopt similar structures and methods as those adopted by Rocket Pool. If those structures are stronger due to this bounty, it could indirectly benefit other DAOs and protocols.

It may also benefit more ‘governance-focused’ entities in the space that currently act as delegates on other protocols.

Work

What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

The bounty would be completed by members of the community contributing and debating the contents of draft RPIPs as part of the RPIP discussion thread that must be posted on the RP forum. In practice, this would look like commentary that the RPIP author feels is useful when the RPIP is moved to either Final or Living status. For the bounty to be paid out, the RPIP must either:

  • Pass a token-weighted vote of the Rocket Pool DAO.
  • Be accepted by the RPIP editors as a Living Informational RPIP.

Examples of work like this appear irregularly on some of the past RPIP discussion threads.

No domain-specific skillset is required here. Just general comprehension and critical thinking applied to draft proposals.

What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

  • Challenge the RPIP author on their assumptions.
  • Avoid overly discouraging the RPIP author, you don’t get the bounty if the RPIP is not accepted, which it won’t be if the author bails.
  • Contribute actionable feedback that makes it easy for the author to react to your input.

Should the output of this bounty be available under an open-source license?

Not strictly applicable. I’m unsure how forum posts are licensed.

Costs

How much do you think the completion of this bounty is worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

I think it’s difficult to accurately price this in aggregate on the Rocket Pool side, and don’t think it’s necessary to do so, as there is a natural limit to how many people can provide useful feedback on a given item before it stops being useful. RPIPs are also fairly infrequent, limiting the cost. The requirement for RPIPs to be adopted by the pDAO (if voted) or RPIP editors (if Living Informational) before bounty payout also limits the cost and reduces the likelihood of spam.

I think the GMC should allocate a pool of $3000 a month to this bounty, but I consider this a sanity check and extremely unlikely to be hit under normal circumstances.

Suggested figures per level of contribution are suggested in a later section.

How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

No significant work on the part of the GMC is required here. No uncommon skillsets or knowledge are required.

Minor administrative work should cover:

  • Coordination with the RPIP author after an RPIP passes to confirm whose feedback they found useful, and to what degree.
  • Sanity Check of the RPIP forum thread to confirm RPIP author’s input is accurate.
  • Sanity Check of the RPIP forum thread to confirm the RPIP author is not unfairly excluding contributing community members.
  • Payouts to those who provided feedback and claim this bounty.

Some of this administrative work could fall to RPIP editors, depending on the GMC’s appetite for it.

Structure

How would you structure this bounty, and why?

I think contributions should be rewarded on the following scale:

  • Unusable or shallow feedback: $0
  • A small amount of useful feedback, limited to a specific area of the RPIP: $40
  • A moderate amount of useful feedback: $80
  • A large amount of useful feedback, covering multiple areas of the RPIP: $160
  • Critical feedback that significantly changed the author’s approach: $250

I don’t think it’s necessary to divide this into milestones. This bounty should have multiple payouts.

Is this bounty repeatable?

Yes. It’s intended to be evergreen and repeatable by the same individuals on different RPIPs.

A bounty hunter should receive only one payout for each RPIP to which they contribute feedback.

Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?

It should not expire.

It should be withdrawn or adjusted if we start to see spam RPIPs and/or spam feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

I am not a member of the GMC. GMC members could benefit from this bounty by providing feedback to RPIPs and should feel free to do so, the same as any other community member.

Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

Effectively no.

There is a chance that if Rocket Pool develops a proven-effective structure or set of RPIPs, then I will attempt to implement similar systems in other protocols, likely hoping for compensation at those protocols.

RPIP Feedback Contribution

Data

  • Repeatable? Yes
  • Expiring? No
  • Skillsets for completion? General Writing, Review
  • Relevant tags? Governance
  • Min reward (USD)? $40
  • Max reward (USD)? $250
  • Any linked definitions? (e.g. if a single bounty proposal becomes multiple definitions.) No.
  • Any dependencies? Requires a draft RPIP which is later adopted.

Summary

Contribute useful feedback to a draft RPIP that is later ratified by Rocket Pool token holders, or accepted by RPIP Editors as a Living Informational RPIP.

Dependencies

This bounty requires a draft RPIP for which feedback is being sought on the Rocket Pool forum. Consult the proposed RPIPs and informational RPIPs sections of the RPIPs portal for drafts.

Requirements

  • You must contribute feedback to a draft RPIP on that RPIPs linked discussion thread on the Rocket Pool forum.
  • Feedback must be rendered in a polite and collaborative manner.
  • For this bounty to be claimed for an RPIP, the RPIP in question must be either:
    • Marked as Living Informational by RPIP Editors.
    • Pass a token-weighted vote of the Rocket Pool pDAO.

The bounty will be paid out at the following tiers, judged by the author(s) of the RPIP.

  • Unusable or shallow feedback: $0
  • A small amount of useful feedback, limited to a specific area of the RPIP: $40
  • A moderate amount of useful feedback: $80
  • A large amount of useful feedback, covering multiple areas of the RPIP: $160
  • Critical feedback that significantly changed the author’s approach: $250

Further Notes

The goal here is to improve the strength and effectiveness of RPIPs in the Rocket Pool DAO and to indirectly strengthen the community’s ability to create effective RPIPs.

General suggestions to those providing feedback include:

  • Challenge the RPIP author on their assumptions.
  • Contribute actionable feedback that makes it easy for the author to react to your input.
  • Avoid overly discouraging the RPIP author, you don’t get the bounty if the RPIP is not accepted, which it won’t be if the author never finishes it.

Verification

No special skills should be needed to verify feedback provided by bounty hunters meets the thresholds described in the requirements section. Authors will know which feedback has helped them, and which has not. The GMC can verify in short order that both the bounty hunter and RPIP author are approaching this in good faith by reading through the public RPIP thread.

Claims on this bounty should be directed to the GMC Administrator.

Resources

Contacts

I’m unsure if support contacts are needed here. I’m happy to act as a contact if the GMC sees some benefit in it. @LongForWisdom on Discord or the forum would be preferable, I don’t reliably check messages on GitHub.

3

Rocket Pool Release Process RPIPs

General Information

What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

To create either a single RPIP or a set of RPIPs that describe how upgrades to the Rocket Pool protocol should take place. The process defined in the RPIPs should meet the following criteria:

  • Well defined - The RPIPs should make it clear to everyone involved what they need to do, when they need to do it, and why they are doing it in this manner.
  • Open - The process should be accessible to anyone who can demonstrate they have the skills to contribute.
  • Resilient - The process must not rely on a single actor or set of actors that have not been elected by the DAO (ie, the core team.)
  • pDAO Centric - The process must empower the pDAO and allow it to determine what upgrades take priority over others.
  • Low Complexity - The process must be as simple as possible given the other requirements.

Why are you writing this bounty proposal?

The current release process isn’t great, mostly because it doesn’t meet the criteria above in its current form.

  • Well defined - It is unclear how the current process is supposed to work in practice. The pDAO can’t ensure things happen when they are supposed to, because the requirements are so vaguely defined.
  • Open - The process does not allow other development teams to substitute for the core team.
  • Resilient - The process relies on the core team.
  • pDAO Centric - The process is not led by the pDAO, or centered around its needs.
  • Low Complexity - While the existing RPIP is not complex, it hides the complexity that is present in the process by defining requirements and responsibilities in vague terms.

The core team has made efforts to include the community and appears to be wanting to move towards a more decentralized process in good faith. However, they don’t have limitless resources to define processes and structures and are (rightly) more heavily focused on the development of the protocol.

A DAOs longevity depends on activating entities and procedures that can carry on past the founding team’s involvement, and it is part of the DAOs responsibility to facilitate this development.

Benefit

Group Benefits
Potential rETH holders Indirect benefits as protocol and DAO matures.
rETH holders Indirect benefits as protocol and DAO matures.
Potential NOs Indirect benefits as protocol and DAO matures.
NOs Indirect benefits as protocol and DAO matures.
Community These sorts of process RPIPs empower the community in a similar way to the GMC. By putting power and responsibility in the community’s hands, participation should become more attractive and meaningful.
RPL holders A more open and resilient development process reduces the risk to the protocol due to its reliance on the founding team. Less risk in the protocol may translate to an increased valuation of RPL.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?

None directly. Protocols may benefit indirectly due to the open source nature of RPIPs, and the ability to adapt the output here to their own DAO.

Work

What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

  1. Serious discussion and debate between the core team and the community. Both the core team and the community will need to separately lay out their recommendations for such a process clearly and unambiguously.
  2. Ideating and discussing a development process that meets the criteria listed above. The focus should be on having many different ideas without worrying too much about quality at this stage.
  3. Narrowing the field of ideas for this process. Focus on the ideas where the tradeoffs are favorable both to the DAO, and those involved in the process.
  4. Drafting the required RPIPs. Lower-level debate on the wording and rules included.
  5. Successful ratification of the RPIPs or set of RPIPs.
  6. Completing a protocol upgrade using the developed process.

I’m unsure if successful versions of this process exist elsewhere where they meet the criteria laid out. I’ve not encountered one, but there any many DAOs. I suggest this should be an area of research for bounty hunters taking up this bounty.

What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

This is not a trivial task. It’s incredibly important that we get buy-in from all the stakeholders involved in this process. A process that the pDAO ratifies, but that the core team is not able to work under is a costly failure. The reverse is also true, a process the core team is happy with but that the pDAO won’t ratify is also a failure.

This needs to actually work in the real world. To ensure that happens, you’ll need input from many sources.

In an ideal world, other external development teams would also be consulted. The goal is that this process can work for anyone with the required skills, not just the core team.

Should the output of this bounty be available under an open-source license?

Probably. An argument can be made that something of this nature is generally useful and that it could be adopted by competitors. Ultimately, I still think it’s worthwhile for items of this nature to be open source and available to be adapted by future DAOs.

Costs

How much do you think the completion of this bounty is worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

Up to $100,000. I can’t stress enough how valuable it is to the DAO to have a process like this that meets the criteria above. To explain the benefits in the context of the criteria:

  • Well defined - Reduces uncertainty in the DAO. Increases transparency. Can increase efficiency because there is a larger group of people able to analyze weaknesses in a given approach.
  • Open - Having a process able to support auxiliary development teams means we can have work taking place in multiple areas of the protocol at once.
  • Resilient - Reduction of risk. If the core team disappears the upgrade process is not lost with them.
  • pDAO Centric - The pDAO can have meaningful and transparent input into the direction of development work.
  • Low Complexity - Easier to understand and communicate about the process, easier to run the process, etc.

How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

A moderate amount of work. Various skill sets will be required to verify various areas.

Some verification will be done by the pDAO itself. Acceptance of the RPIPs, acceptance of the first upgrade made under the process, etc.

Structure

How would you structure this bounty, and why?

Not a single payout to a single team. I would expect this to be split into milestones. I would expect multiple bounty hunters to claim partial credit for each milestone. Done properly, this effort should involve much of the community.

This could be broken into multiple bounty definitions, but care needs to be taken that the DAO is not rewarding full payout on each part of this bounty until the final result is achieved: A ratified update to the protocol delivered under this new process.

I believe the major ‘finish lines’ here are:

  1. A consensus vision of what such a process should achieve in general terms, taking into account stakeholder feedback.
  2. A set of draft RPIPs implementing a process that meets the criteria and the vision.
  3. Acceptance of a set of draft RPIPs by the pDAO and the core development team.
  4. An update to the protocol is delivered using the new process.

I’m prepared to put together bounty definitions for this proposal, but I would like first to see the proposal accepted by the GMC. It’s a fair amount of work that isn’t required if the GMC is not interested in the initiative.

Is this bounty repeatable?

Not for this specific thing. It may be we can develop a template from this for bounties that solve other hard problems.

Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?

It should be withdrawn if the pDAO accepts a set of RPIPs from the core development team where those RPIPs meet the required criteria laid out in this bounty.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

No, I’m not on the GMC, nor do I expect GMC members to directly benefit from its completion. I would like to contribute to the completion of the bounty, but I would rather not take a leading role.

Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

In practical terms no. There is a chance that if Rocket Pool develops an effective and generally applicable process that solves this problem I will attempt to implement similar processes in other protocols, likely hoping for compensation from those protocols.

4

DAO Engagement Documentation

General Information

What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

The idea for this bounty is to expand the existing Rocket Pool official documentation with easy-to-consume explainers of the current Rocket Pool DAO structures, and how to engage with them positively and effectively. This section should be targeted at individuals new to the Rocket Pool DAO, whether node operator or otherwise. The author should assume familiarity with crypto communities generally. This should include pages like:

  • A page describing the pDAO and the oDAO, their responsibilities, and differences.
  • A page listing some of the key RPIPs that govern the Rocket Pool DAOs, likely candidates listed below. The page should include two brief paragraphs for each, the first describing what it does/defines / etc. And the second describes why this is important/useful/significant for Rocket Pool.
    • RPIP-1: RPIP Purpose and Guidelines
    • RPIP-4: Community Resolutions and Voting
    • RPIP-10: pDAO Budget Allocation / Committees
    • RPIP-17: Self-limiting Rocket Pool
    • RPIP-23: pDAO Charter
    • RPIP-24: oDAO Charter
    • RPIP-30: RPL Staking Rework (optional)
    • RPIP-33: Implementation of an On-Chain pDAO
    • RPIP-36: Committee Membership Record (optional)
    • RPIP-37: Protocol Development
    • If other significant RPIPs are ratified or accepted by the RPIP editors, they should also be included.
  • A page describing the GMC, their role in the Rocket Pool DAO, and links to find more information.
  • A page describing the IMC, their role in the Rocket Pool DAO, and links to find more information.
  • A page summarizing the best ways to engage with the community and the DAOs productively, should include summaries and links to the following pages:
    • A page on Discord, the trading channel, and the support channel, any other relevant channels. Care should be taken to highlight the presence and importance of threads, with some prominent examples.
    • A page on voting targeted at Node Operators. How to vote, how to delegate, why it’s important to vote, how often should they check-in, etc.
    • A page on DAO engagement via feedback, highlighting how and where to find proposals that are looking for feedback, how, where, and when to find grants, bounty, and retro proposals looking for feedback.
    • A page on DAO contribution via work, volunteer committee positions, bounty board, how grants and retros work, etc.
  • A page listing the crucial resources that exist and are used frequently by the community, complete with a short paragraph description of what they are and why they are useful.

There may be other pages that should also be present in such a section, bounty hunters should be free to adjust.

Why are you writing this bounty proposal?

This doesn’t exist and it should. The Rocket Pool community is fairly cohesive, and also fairly inscrutable to outsiders. As with all crypto communities, it has its own inside jokes, terminology, conventions, etc. It’s very hard to get up to speed with what’s going on if you’re completely new. There is no ‘friendly’ introduction to the DAO / community (as opposed to the protocol) that I’m aware of.

Benefit

Group Benefits
Potential rETH holders Potential rETH holders would be better able to find information about how Rocket Pool works as a DAO and a community, which could positively impact their willingness to choose rETH.
rETH holders Existing rETH holders are unlikely to benefit.
Potential NOs Potential NOs would be better able to integrate with the DAO and community. They would better understand what sort of DAO contributions were useful, and how to put those into action if desired.
NOs NOs that are less engaged in the community would better be able to learn what sort of DAO contributions were useful, and how to put those into action if desired.
Community It can help convert potential community members into community members, benefiting everyone as the pool of talent and perspectives increases.
RPL holders RPL holders are unlikely to benefit directly.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?

Professional service organizations in the crypto space may find it easier to engage with Rocket Pool, but this is a fairly obscure benefit.

Work

What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

Steps

  1. Produce or gather documentation content (some may already exist outside of the official documentation.)
  2. Run the official documentation site locally, test, and integrate changes.
  3. Have new content reviewed by the community and core team.
  4. Content is merged and author + reviewers are paid.

I spent a fair bit of time producing this sort of documentation at Maker. Can find some examples here: https://github.com/LongForWisdom/governance-manual, though the pages don’t map one-to-one. Looking at older versions of that repository may be more useful.

In terms of skillset bounty hunters need general writing ability, a good sense of priority, how to present information, and fairly deep knowledge of the Rocket Pool community and structures.

What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

Focus on making this useful. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows very little about the protocol or its DAO. Find a few people who know nothing about the protocol and DAO, and get them to read, and see if it’s useful.

Should the output of this bounty be available under an open-source license?

Yes. No reason not to, it’s only relevant for RP, and will mean the community can mirror it on other documentation sites if they want.

Costs

How much do you think the completion of this bounty is worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

Maybe 6-8k for authoring, perhaps more. Doing this well is harder than it sounds, and documentation bounties have not seen significant uptake.
1-2k total for reviews.
2k for a maintenance plan that will actually result in this section of documentation being maintained. Could be a repeatable bounty, could be a stipend, could go to a committee, etc. Paid half now, half when the first instance of serious maintenance happens.

How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

In terms of verification, anyone active in the Rocket Pool community for a decent amount of time should be able to confirm that this covers the important areas.

Someone relatively new to the protocol could be found and compensated to verify that the concepts are reasonably easy to grasp for a newcomer.

Structure

How would you structure this bounty, and why?

Milestones for the following:

  • Baseline Authorship - Content listed above
  • Additional Authorship - Up to three(?) pages of additional content that the verifiers agree is a strong value-add.
  • Review - Contribute to reviews, split between reviewers, min payout of like $100
  • Maintenance Plan - Provides a concrete maintenance plan. Either a written and accepted perpetual bounty for maintenance, a commitment from a committee to maintain it, or a grant for the author to maintain it in the future.
  • Maintenance Success - The maintenance plan has an instance of succeeding. (should be fairly small, this shouldn’t be the incentive to maintain once and then ignore.)

Is this bounty repeatable?

No, not in and of itself.

Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?

I don’t think so.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

Not a member of the GMC, GMC shouldn’t directly financially benefit from this bounty.

Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

Nope. I will write the definition if the GMC is interested in this proposal.

5

[Posting in order to let LFW keep posting.]

6

RocketWatch Support Template FAQ Integration

General Information

What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

The RocketWatch Bot contains a feature that allows members of the community to create support templates for commonly asked questions or information. These templates can then be displayed for users when the same question comes up again. The contents of some of these support templates are likely useful outside of Discord. Further, they would be easier to evaluate and maintain if present within a GitHub repository over buried in the support bot.

The intent of this bounty is to:

  1. Evaluate the content of the existing support templates, and determine if any have utility outside of discord.
  2. Copy any useful content to a more referencable and maintainable source. Ideally the official documentation pages. If for whatever reason this is not possible, move out to a community documentation page.
  3. Adjust the support template contents to give a short paragraph summary of the answer, and then link to the above documentation page.

The bounty should also include a milestone to determine a maintenance plan, to maintain this parity going forwards.

Why are you writing this bounty proposal?

It’s come up a couple of times while I was looking at the existing documentation-related bounties. There’s a good chance that information that could go in the official FAQs exists within the RocketWatch bot, this is pretty frustrating. We have two sources of information that generally don’t reference each other, and neither of which are maintained reliably. Unifying them to the extent possible is a step towards more effective and maintainable FAQ documentation as the protocol continues to evolve.

Benefit

Group Benefits
Potential rETH holders Better maintained FAQs can help rETH holders make an informed choice regarding Rocket Pool.
rETH holders Easier time finding information, information more likely to be accurate.
Potential NOs Better maintained FAQs can help potential NOs make an informed choice regarding Rocket Pool.
NOs Easier time finding information, information more likely to be accurate.
Community Easier time finding information, information more likely to be accurate.
RPL holders Easier time finding information, information more likely to be accurate.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?

None.

Work

What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

  1. Get access to the contents of the RocketWatch support pages. Bot author may be able to help with this, but at a minimum, you can call them all through the bot.
  2. Review contents, make four lists:
    A) This should be on the official FAQ
    B) This should be on a community FAQ
    C) This should remain solely as a support template entry (maybe be meta-specific to Discord, etc)
    D) This is no longer relevant and should be removed from the support bot.
  3. Action the produced lists, focusing primarily on A and B. Clean up entries where needed so that they meet official FAQ quality requirements.
  4. Determine a robust plan for maintaining parity between the contents of these support pages, and the official and community FAQs.

This is fairly generic organizational / consolidation work, I have no specific examples.

The main skillsets are to have fairly deep RP knowledge, and to be able to effectively review the content.

What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

If you haven’t been in the community for long, consult with some of those who have been here longer, they may have a better idea of which support templates are commonly used.

The RP team will likely want to keep the official FAQs fairly general. It’s likely the very specific in-the-weeds answers that will need to go to a community FAQ.

Should the output of this bounty be available under an open-source license?

Yes.

Costs

How much do you think the completion of this bounty is worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

Hard for me to judge, as I don’t have the strongest idea of how much good stuff is buried in the 74 support templates in the bot. Feel free to defer to longer-standing members of the community. If I end up doing the definition, I’ll likely try to get access to the full contents so I have a better idea of how much work there is here.

Perhaps 2k for producing the four lists.
Perhaps another 2-3k to sort out what’s there and get everything into the FAQs.
2k for a maintenance plan that will actually result in parity being maintained. Could be a repeatable bounty, could be a stipend, could go to a committee, etc. Paid half now, half when the first instance of serious maintenance happens.

Total definitely below 10k, probably above 5k, but depends exactly on how valuable the contents of the support pages are.

How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

May be some amount of work, especially if the entries need to be cleaned up significantly to go on more ‘official’ FAQs. Would need general RP knowledge. The members of the unofficial support team are perhaps good candidates for verifying this.

Structure

How would you structure this bounty, and why?

Milestones that roughly correspond to the steps above. Payouts can go to different people for each milestone, but probably let the completer of the first have first-right-of-refusal on the subsequent milestones. Can be a single bounty definition.

Is this bounty repeatable?

No.

Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?

If the bot were retired. Shouldn’t expire.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

Not a member of the GMC. No conflicts of interest I’m aware of.

Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

No, I don’t think so.

1 Like
7

Rocket Pool Design Architect

General Information

What is the nature of the proposed bounty?

This is a bounty for someone to dedicate time and effort to making pDAO stuff happen. For example, figure out how to make better use of the existing volunteer pool and grow the pool. Write out more detailed specs of work that needs to happen to progress on the roadmap for Rocket Pool’s future. And/or write that roadmap and get buy-in from relevant stakeholders. etc.

Why are you writing this bounty proposal?

Everything is happening too slowly and is bottlenecked on capacity of key volunteers like Valdorff. I have a hunch we could move faster if better organised. And that organisation may be something we can just pay for.

Benefit

The benefits are to Rocket Pool protocol as a whole. Especially to RPL holders since it would presumably lead to improved RPL/ETH ratio if the protocol succeeds. But all stakeholders in Rocket Pool benefit, and I would not know how to break these benefits down per stakeholder in a meaningful way.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals would stand to benefit from the bounty being successfully completed?

If this works it could be a good role model for other DAOs. And if it doesn’t work, a fateful lesson.

Work

What steps would be entailed in completing the bounty? Do successful examples of such work exist elsewhere? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

Figure out what needs doing and who can do it, and be the interface between them. Automate and systematise as much of your job away into infrastructure and processes. I think the skillset/knowledge is “program manager” or “team lead” or, in the words of @Valdorff , “design, architecture, whatever”.

@LongForWisdom seems kinda good at this already actually. But we need more.

What advice would you give a bounty hunter working on this bounty?

You need to love Rocket Pool and making things happen, and feel excited about the opportunity to make things run much better yourself.

Should the output of this bounty be available under an open source license?

If there’s anything copyrightable produced then sure, of course.

Costs

How much do you think the completion of this bounty worth to Rocket Pool (in USD)?

I would set it at something like $200,000 per year. But really whoever is doing this should find a better way to figure out costing than my gut.

How much work will be needed to verify this bounty has been completed? What skillsets or knowledge will be required?

Rocket Pool stops sucking.

Structure

How would you structure this bounty, and why?

This bounty should essentially pay out a salary to someone doing a job. Stability (dependable expectations) on both sides of the equation is beneficial.

Is this bounty repeatable?

Yes.

Are there any reasonable circumstances under which this bounty should be withdrawn? Should it expire?

Sure, the same kind of conditions under which someone would get fired or let go for failing to do their job. And maybe at some point if it seems like Rocket Pool (mainly the pDAO actually) is so automated that it doesn’t need anyone to coordinate running it. I don’t anticipate the latter being the case for a long while though.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the bounty have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the successful completion of the bounty).

No.

Will the applicant, or any protocol or project in which the applicant has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the bounty is successfully completed?

No.

8

Notice: This message marks the closing of the eleventh (11) round of Rocket Pool bounty applications. Any applications submitted after this will not be considered for this round. The GMC will announce the award recipients in a new thread here on the forums around April 26th. The community will then have two weeks to issue any challenges before funds are disbursed. Thank you to all who applied and thank you to everyone who has followed along. Anyone who would like to comment on existing applications is encouraged to do so in this thread.