The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 11 (Mar 10 - Apr 7) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round. For those who did not receive an award, please note that applicants are welcome to re-apply.
This post also begins the fourteen-day clock during which, according to RPIP-15, “[a]nyone MAY file an RPIP disputing a grant, bounty, or retrospective award within two weeks of the announcement of recipients. Such an RPIP SHALL be subject to a snapshot vote.” Any awards not subject to such a challenge will become official on May 10, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.
Subcommittees
Development: dondo, rocknet, Destroyaaa
(jcrtp is on paternity leave)
Research: Ken, Looking For Owls, epineph
Marketing: Waq, rplmaxi,eth, Dr Doofus
Awarded Amounts
Awards were denominated in USD for the purposes of committee discussions and voting on finalized award amounts. Awards were then converted to RPL at the current ratio ($21/RPL) as of shortly before this posting (and then rounded up to the nearest RPL).
Application Breakdown
Total New Applications: 13
Total Grant Applications: 5
Total Bounty Applications: 5
Total Retro Applications: 3
Total Applications Transferred From Last Round: 1
Total Amount Grants Requested: $137,000
Total Amount Bounties Requested: $349,000
Total Amount Retros Requested: $16,011
Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $502,011
Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $114,016
Total Amount Reserves: $1,760,000
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Committee | Awardee | Title | Decision | Amount (RPL - RPL at $21/RPL) | Amount (USD) | Average score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA112405 | All | Patches | Team Partnership - Patches | Approve | N/A | $104,000 (max) | 5 |
| RA112402 | Dev | Leighm.eth | Support Work (Leighm.eth) | Approve | 402.90 | $8,461.00 | 3.67 |
| GA112402 | Research | Josh Rosenblatt | Succession Planning Research | Approve | 104.76 | $2,200.00 | 3.33 |
| BA112404 | Research | GovAlpha | Support Template FAQ Integration | Approve | 333.33 | $7,000 | 4 |
| RA112403 | Research | vacalaranja | Treasury Work | Approve | 121.43 | $2,550.00 | 5 |
| GA112401 | Marketing | ShfRyn | Summit Program | Approve | 142.86 | $3,000.00 | 4.33 |
| RA112404 | Marketing | dEEtoooo | Reddit Contributions | Approve | 238.10 | $5,000.00 | 4.67 |
| BA112402 | Research | GovAlpha | Release Process RPIPs | Defer w/ Future Consideration | 3 | ||
| BA112403 | Research | GovAlpha | DAO Engagement Discussion | Defer w/ Future Consideration | 3 | ||
| BA112401 | Research | GovAlpha | RPIP Feedback Contribution | Decline | 2.67 | ||
| BA0902401 | All | SSV | SSV Integration | Decline | 2.69 | ||
| GA112403 | Dev | Sakundi | Security Dashboard | Decline | 1 | ||
| BA112405 | Research | ramana | Design Architect | Decline | 1.5 | ||
| GA112404 | Marketing | dodao | Tidbits, Simulations & Videos | Decline | 2 |
Detailed Award Results
Name: Team Partnership - Patches
Proposer: Patches (via ShfRyn)
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #6 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $104,000
Awarded Funding: $104,000
Score: 5
Comments: Members of the GMC met with Langers, and Patches before submitting this bounty proposal. The GMC approves this application based on Patches’ essential skills and the minimal financial risk involved. This decision strengthens the GMC’s partnership with the core Rocket Pool team and aligns with the objective of expediting protocol upgrades. The grant has a maximum of $104,000 that can be distributed, however, based on conversations with Patches, it is likely he will only be claiming around $65,000.
Payment Structure: Patches will be paid $100/hr, up to $17,333.33 per month. LUSD
Acceptance Criteria: When logging hours, Patches will submit a timesheet to the GMC for both RP core work, and bounty assistance work. Langers can verify the RP core work and the GMC can verify the bounty assistance work. The GMC has discretion to modify the hours proposed for the bounty work. This is not a contract; patches, the GMC, or the core team can terminate this partnership at any time; the GMC remains responsible for reimbursing for work prior to termination. This is not a contract; patches, the GMC, or the core team can terminate this partnership at any time; the GMC remains responsible for reimbursing for work prior to termination.
–
Name: Support Work (Leighm.eth)
Proposer: Leighm.eth
Type: Retrospective Award
Subcommittee: Dev
Link to Application: Round 11 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #3 by leighm.eth
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $8,461
Awarded Funding: $8,461
Score: 3.67
Comments: The committee acknowledges the significance of community support and places trust in the endorsement of the work accomplished thus far.
–
Name: Succession Planning Research
Proposer: Josh Rosenblatt
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #3 by aJoshR
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $6,000
Awarded Funding: $2,200
Score: 3.33
Comments: After discussions between the GMC and the applicant, the GMC has decided to fund $2,200 for a reduced scope of creating an estate planning document.
Acceptance Criteria: The document will be reviewed by the GMC and posted to the community for feedback prior to payment.
–
Name: Support Template FAQ Integration
Proposer: GovAlpha
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #6 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $7,000
Awarded Funding: $7,000
Score: 4
Comments: Acknowledging the reasonableness of this proposal, we recognize the inefficiency caused by repetitive inquiries in the support channel, leading to wasted time and resources. Investing in a bounty to support the development of a template bot for support queries could significantly alleviate this issue and benefit support channel contributors. To ensure a sustainable solution, we advocate for a forward-looking plan to fund a dedicated support team, providing cohesive assistance in the #support channel.
–
Name: Treasury Work
Proposer: vacalaranja
Type: Retrospective Award
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #4 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $2,550
Awarded Funding: $2,550
Score: 5
Comments: This is an easy decision to support as it has been crucial for the security and accounting of the protocol.
–
Name: Summit Program
Proposer: ShfRyn
Type: Grant / Bounty
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #2 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $3,000
Awarded Funding: $3,000
Score: 4.33
Comments: This initiative has the potential to be highly impactful, contingent upon its outcomes. Considering the importance of community building, the GMC supports the idea, envisioning its use for both existing community members and attracting new ones, including those from adjacent communities. The significant impact of community meetings in Denver highlights the value of such endeavors, prompting the GMC to advocate for increased funding in this area.
Acceptance Criteria: Upon approval of a location application, the GMC will post the location into a designated channel on the GMC server. Events must be prominently advertised on the dao.rocketpool.net website at least one month (30 days) before their scheduled date. Reimbursement requests must be lodged with the GMC Administrator within 30 days following the conclusion of the event, either directly or by posting on the GMC server.
–
Name: Reddit Contributions
Proposer: dEEtoooo (via ShfRyn)
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application:
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $5,000
Awarded Funding: $5,000
Score: 4.67
Comments: dEEtoooo has done an excellent job supporting the Rocket Pool protocol on Reddit.
–
Name: RPIP Feedback Contributions
Proposer: GovAlpha
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #2 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Decline
Score: 2.67
Comments: We acknowledge the merit of this proposal, yet we are concerned about the potential increase in bureaucracy it may entail. If successful, it could lead to a surge in requests for $40 grants, necessitating differentiation between minimal, small, and moderate contributions. We suggest exploring alternatives such as larger grants for successful RPIPs and establishing a slush fund for the author to distribute, as they are best positioned to assess significant contributors. Additionally, we prefer to allocate funds towards supporting staff, RPIP editors, and contributors rather than implementing a pay-for-comment or pay-for-engagement model. We propose evaluating extraordinary commits and contributions on a case-by-case basis to ensure fairness and effectiveness. The GMC is declining this proposal, however they have a discussion call scheduled with LongForWisdom, and Valdorff, to discuss this round’s applications.
–
Name: Release Process RPIPs
Proposer: GovAlpha
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #3 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Defer with Future Consideration
Requested Funding: $100,000
Score: 2.67
Comments: While acknowledging the potential importance of this proposal at its current price point, we believe that a clearer, stepwise milestone structure may be more appropriate. It is suggested to consider multiple bounties addressing areas of highest need first. However, given our current focus on Saturn development and the significant time commitment required from our core contributors, we cannot prioritize this proposal over other pressing matters. The GMC has a call scheduled with LongForWisdom and Valdorff to discuss this proposal.
–
Name: DAO Engagement Discussion
Proposer: GovAlpha
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #4 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Defer with Future Consideration
Requested Funding: $12,000
Score: 3
Comments: While recognizing the importance of this proposal and deeming $8k reasonable for the work involved, concerns arise regarding the reliance on a single individual to interpret all aspects of the project. It may be beneficial to divide the tasks into multiple bounties, prioritizing higher-impact areas. Additionally, given the potential overlap with crucial Saturn-related tasks, we must ensure that the right individuals are allocated to each initiative. As this proposal aligns with BA112402, the GMC has scheduled a call with LongForWisdom and Valdorff.
–
Name: SSV Integration
Proposer: SSV
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 9 - GMC Call for Bounty Applications - Deadline is February 11 - #2 by BenAffleck
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $20,000 - $30,000
Score: 2.69
Comments This Round: The GMC has decided to decline this application within the bounty format based on the concerns raised about the extensive communication required and the need for active participation from both teams in the integration process. The GMC has acknowledged SSV or more generally, DVT, is of high interest to the committee and the Rocket Pool protocol. There’s recognition that this project’s scope could expand beyond initial expectations. Additionally, there’s a call for laying out the risks before committing to make this integration a core part of node operator options.The GMC has displayed a very strong interest in funding either of the following: a grant from an experienced party, that proposes the specifics of the integration, or a bounty solely focuses on a feasibility study.
Comments from Round 10: The GMC has decided to defer this decision to round 11, pending further discussion. Concerns are raised about the extensive communication required and the need for active participation from both teams in the integration process.
While there’s acknowledgment of the potential value for node operators, there’s also recognition that this project’s scope could expand beyond initial expectations.
Additionally, there’s a call for laying out the risks before committing to make this integration a core part of node operator options.
Overall, while the idea is supported in principle, the decision is deferred to allow for more comprehensive discussion and assessment of the project’s feasibility and scope.
The GMC would like to signal strong support in the following:
-
A grant from an experienced party, that proposes the specifics of the integration
-
A bounty solely focuses on a feasibility study
–
Name: Security Dashboard
Proposer: Sakundi
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Dev
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #4 by Davidlerma
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $5,000
Score: 1
Comments: The GMC has declined the proposal for a security dashboard. The committee acknowledges the potential of this initiative, but ultimately, they are hesitant due to doubts about demand and the timing of expenditure. It appears that this proposal does not directly address our current challenges or anticipate future ones.
–
Name: Design Architect
Proposer: ramana
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #7 by ramana
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $200,000
Score: 1.5
Comments: While some committee members advocate for additional delegated positions to empower individuals like Valdorff, it is imperative that such roles are clearly defined and preferably managed through the DAO rather than the GMC. However, Patches’ case is unique due to its narrow scope and time-limited nature.
–
Name: Tidbits, Simulations & Videos
Proposer: dodao
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #5 by dodao
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $19,000
Score: 2
Comments: Given recent funding allocations towards knowledge content and the complexity of Rocket Pool, the committee does not foresee a sufficient return on investment at this time.
Member Participation
All GMC members participated and submitted their decisions on time.
Final Voting Stages
No amendments were declared and no members opted to reject the vote.