The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 12 (Apr 7 - May 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 June 10, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.
Subcommittees
Development: dondo, rocknet, Destroyaaa
Research: Ken, Looking For Owls, epineph
Marketing: Waq, rplmaxi,eth, Dr Doofus
Modifications from Last Round
Awarded Amounts
Over several weeks the GMC discussed and passed the following proposal:
Award amounts for grants, bounties, and retrospective awards will be denominated in USD. RPL amounts will no longer be price locked at the time of award for grants and bounties. The GMC will take into account the requested token on the original application but ultimately has discretion on whether or not to pay with RPL or LUSD at the time of payment. For RPL calculations, the value of RPL will be assessed on the 13th of the month at 0:00 UTC from CoinGecko and rounded to the nearest RPL.
Some of the reasons for doing so include:
-
Internally - The bounty board (rpbountyboard.com) consistently fails to display accurate compensation for each project to bounty hunters. The amounts listed alongside each bounty vary widely upon recalculation, rendering most prices misleading. Implementing a rule to recalculate all bounties would allow for the accurate presentation of each bounty’s price. Typically, bounties undergo recalculation if they weren’t approved during the current quarter. Enforcing an RPL price lock within a very narrow range arguably offers no benefit and complicates administration significantly.
-
Externally - Price locking RPL is logical for application creators (grants and retrospectives) as they express their intentions and retain the option to forgo price locking. However, for bounty hunters who did not initiate the application, the price lock holds less significance. The majority of our applicants are now third-party contributors who are less concerned with RPL’s market risks and plan their budgets in USD. Failing to adjust payments accordingly can pose financial challenges for them.
Defer To pDAO Option
The following modification is still in development but will likely be added before the next GMC round’s conclusion.
Requirements For Invocation
The majority of GMC members have: 1) Expressed interest in the project’s goal. 2) Concluded that there is no clear evidence indicating interference with the protocol’s current priorities. 3) Identified a specific question they wish to pose to the pDAO before funding can be approved. This inquiry may stem from a variety of factors, such as the contentious nature of the topic, significant grant amounts, proposals perceived as beyond the GMC’s scope, or intricacies requiring technical expertise beyond the GMC’s current capabilities.Defer To pDAO Process
- The GMC Administrator will draft a forum post for the committee’s review within 24 hours of the decision.
- The GMC will have 48 hours to review and provide feedback before the administrator posts it on the DAO forum.
- The forum post will encompass the application, the GMC’s feedback, a sentiment poll, and a request for guidance from the pDAO.
- After ten days, the administrator will request a 7-day snapshot poll from Langers to approve or deny the application.
Committee Stipends
The GMC has passed the following proposal:
The GMC’s monthly stipend budget (RPIP-41) will be divided equally among current active members. Each active member will receive $3,510 divided by the number of active members, per month. A current active member is defined as one who participated in the previous award round by submitting feedback and decisions before the decision deadline. However, if a member missed the scoring deadline but made valuable contributions during the period, the GMC can vote to make that member eligible for compensation for that round. The vote will last five days and must conclude before the eleventh (11th) day of the following month.
Application Breakdown
Total Grant Applications: 2
Total Bounty Applications: 3
Total Retro Applications: 6
Total Applications Transferred From Last Round: 2
Total Amount Grants Requested: $36,000
Total Amount Bounties Requested: $153,500
Total Amount Retros Requested: $49,190
Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $238,690
Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $89,397
Total Amount Reserves: $1,280,000
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Committee | Awardee | Title | Decision | Amount (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA122401 | All | epineph | Rocket Pool Support Payments | Approve | $18,000.00 |
| RA122402 | All | Mig | Support Work | Approve | $12,645 |
| RA122403 | All | Leighm.eth | Support Work Part 2 | Approve | $1,485.00 |
| RA122404 | All | Steely | Support Work | Approve | $8,640.00 |
| RA122405 | All | haloooloolo | Support Work Part 2 | Approve | $5,760.00 |
| BA122402 | Dev | Patches | Smart Node UI Wireframes | Approve | $2,000.00 |
| BA122403 | Dev | Patches | Smart Node v2 HTTP API OpenApi 3 spec and codegen | Approve | $3,500.00 |
| GA122401 | Marketing | FlatMoney | rETH on Base | Approve | $15,000.00 |
| GA122402 | Marketing | beaconcha.in | beaconcha.in Advertising | Approve | $6,000.00 |
| RA122406 | Marketing | FinBob | Amsterdam Meetup | Approve | $142.04 |
| BA1102403 | All | LFW | DAO Engagement Discussion | Approve (needs definition) | $7,920.00 |
| BA1102402 | All | LFW | Release Process RPIPs | Defer w/ Future Consideration | |
| RA122401 | Research | OpenUX | Node Operator Research Study | Decline |
Detailed Award Results
Name: Rocket Pool Support Payments
Proposer: epineph
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 12 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #2 by epineph
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $36,000
Awarded Funding: $18,000
Score: 4.14
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve funding at 50% of the requested amount. This decision balances the need for support with budgetary concerns and allows for future adjustments if necessary. Key points from the decision include:
- Concerns about RocketScrape and the necessity of $17/hr for all hours of the day.
- Agreement with the sentiment that even without compensation, support would likely continue.
- Recognition that current payments might be excessive and a starting point of 50% is appropriate.
- Acknowledgment that high hourly rates could lead to farming support.
- Support for the idea that volunteers should receive some form of appreciation, aligning support payments more closely with the spirit of volunteering.
- Consensus that 50% is a reasonable starting point, with the possibility of increasing funds if a drop-off in support is observed.
- The recommendation to refine the process of determining who gets paid.
Overall, the decision to approve 50% funding reflects a cautious approach, providing support while allowing for flexibility and adjustments based on future needs and outcomes.
Payment Structure: Payments portionally split amongst all awardees based on adjusted hours worked per RocketScrape, as listed above.
–
Name: Support Work
Proposer: Mig
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #3 by Mig21
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $13,140
Awarded Funding: $12,645
Score: 4.6
Comments: The GMC held a separate vote to determine how to handle support the four support applications this cycle. The GMC deliberated: Pay $90/hr for work prior to April. Pro-rate $45/hr for work following April. Reasoning for the reduced amount can be read in the commentary for BA122401 (Rocket Pool Support Payments).
Payment Structure: 136 hours before April ($12,240) 9 hours in April ($405)
–
Name: Support Work Part 2
Proposer: Leighm.eth
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #4 by leighm.eth
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $2,970
Awarded Funding: $1,485
Score: 4.33
Comments: The GMC held a separate vote to determine how to handle support the four support applications this cycle. The GMC deliberated: Pay $90/hr for work prior to April. Pro-rate $45/hr for work following April. Reasoning for the reduced amount can be read in the commentary for BA122401.
Payment Structure: 33 hours in April ($1,485)
–
Name: Support Work
Proposer: Steely
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #5 by Steely
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $9,180
Awarded Funding: $8,640
Score: 4.5
Comments: The GMC held a separate vote to determine how to handle support the four support applications this cycle. The GMC deliberated: Pay $90/hr for work prior to April. Pro-rate $45/hr for work following April. Reasoning for the reduced amount can be read in the commentary for BA122401.
Payment Structure: 89 hours before April ($8010) 14 hours in April ($630)
–
Name: Support Work - Part 2
Proposer: haloooloolo
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #6 by haloooloolo
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $7,200
Awarded Funding: $5,760
Score: 4.33
Comments: The GMC held a separate vote to determine how to handle support the four support applications this cycle. The GMC deliberated: Pay $90/hr for work prior to April. Pro-rate $45/hr for work following April. Reasoning for the reduced amount can be read in the commentary for BA122401.
Payment Structure: 48 hours in March ($4320). 32 hours in April ($1,440)
–
Name: Smart Node UI Wireframes
Proposer: Patches
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Dev
Link to Application: Round 12 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #3 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $2,000
Awarded Funding: $2,000
Score: 3.67
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve 100% funding for the Smart Node UI Wireframes. This decision reflects confidence in the project’s potential benefits and acknowledges the preparatory nature of wireframing. Key points from the decision include:
- Some reservations about funding a potential product versus a finished one, with a preference for community-driven development.
- Recognition that the work has been lined up by Patches and will provide informative insights.
- Agreement that starting to build out the UI for Smart Node is a good plan.
- Consensus that the cost is reasonable and wireframes are a valuable first step.
- Acknowledgment that a larger discussion about funding the entire project is necessary, but wireframes can help gauge community interest and support.
- Support for the idea that even those who prefer the TUI may find the wireframes beneficial for the broader DAO.
Overall, the decision to approve 100% funding for the Smart Node UI Wireframes is based on the low cost, preparatory nature of the project, and the potential to inform future decisions about the full development of the UI.
–
Name: Smart Node v2 HTTP API OpenApi 3 spec and codegen
Proposer: Patches
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Dev
Link to Application: Round 12 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #4 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $3,500
Awarded Funding: $3,500
Score: 4
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve 100% funding for the Smart Node v2 HTTP API OpenAPI 3 spec and codegen. This decision reflects the strategic importance of the project and its potential to enhance integration and tooling. Key points from the decision include:
- Approval with a condition to review progress after milestone 1 and consultation with Fornax.
- Acknowledgment that Joe and Fornax’s support would facilitate UI integration and benefit tooling.
Overall, the decision to approve 100% funding for the Smart Node v2 HTTP API OpenAPI 3 spec and codegen is based on its anticipated utility in integration and tooling, with a structured review process after initial milestones to ensure alignment and progress.
–
Name: rETH on Base
Proposer: FlatMoney
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application: Round 12 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #2 by BraveNewDeFi
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $30,000
Awarded Funding: $15,000
Score: 3
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve funding at 50% of the requested amount for the rETH marketing initiative. This decision balances the importance of the initiative with budgetary concerns and current strategic priorities. Key points from the decision include:
- Agreement that the requested amount is too high for the services offered, especially considering rETH marketing is not a top priority at the moment.
- Suggestion to revisit the possibility of full collaboration after more tokenomics changes are implemented in the future.
- Recognition of the importance of being on Base and partnering with Flat Money, though they are not the largest player in the market.
Overall, the decision to approve 50% funding reflects a cautious approach, providing support while allowing for flexibility to increase collaboration as strategic priorities evolve and additional tokenomics changes are implemented.
Payment Structure: The GMC will need to approve the revised proposal submitted by FlatMoney.
–
Name: beaconcha.in Advertising Renewal
Proposer: beaconcha.in
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application: Round 12 - Call For Grant Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #3 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $6,000
Awarded Funding: $6,000
Score: 4
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve 100% funding for beaconcha.in advertising. This decision reflects the strategic value of targeting the core demographic despite the high cost per click. Key points from the decision include:
- Recognition of the high cost per click ($16 CPC), but acknowledgment that the overall cost is low for a non-exclusive ad.
- Agreement that beaconcha.in users represent a core demographic, making the advertising highly targeted and potentially more effective.
- Justification for maintaining base visibility at this price point, which is seen as reasonable and beneficial for existing Rocket Pool users.
Overall, the decision to approve 100% funding for beaconcha.in advertising is based on the strategic importance of reaching a targeted audience, maintaining visibility, and the relatively low overall cost despite high CPC.
–
Name: Amsterdam Meetup
Proposer: FinBob
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #7 by lfinbob
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $142.04
Awarded Funding: $142.04
Score: 3.67
Comments: The GMC has decided to approve 100% funding for the Amsterdam meetup. This decision reflects the low cost and the value of meetups for community engagement. Key points from the decision include:
- Agreement that meetups are enjoyable and the cost is low.
- Recognition of meetups as a core tool for maintaining community engagement and cohesion.
- Consensus to fund the requested amounts with a cap of $50 per person, ensuring fairness and adherence to budget constraints.
Overall, the decision to approve 100% funding for the Amsterdam meetup is based on its low cost, the importance of fostering community engagement, and a clear understanding of the funding limits requested by participants. This approach ensures community support while maintaining budget discipline.
Payment Structure:
–
Name: DAO Engagement Discussion
Proposer: LongForWisdom
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application:
Decision: Approve (needs definition)
Requested Funding: $12,000
Awarded Funding: $7,920
Score: 3.5
Comments: After reviewing the feedback, and holding a ranked choice vote, the GMC has decided to approve funding for the DAO Engagement Discussion at 66% of the requested amount. Key points from the feedback include:
- Support for the initiative as a worthwhile experiment or incremental progress, with a preference for a lower budget.
- Recognition of Rocket Pool’s existing resources and community support, but agreement on the added value of consolidating information.
- Consensus that having all relevant information aggregated in one place will be beneficial.
Overall, the decision to approve funding at 66% reflects a balanced approach, supporting the initiative while ensuring cost-effectiveness and aligning with the committee’s feedback on the appropriate budget.
–
Name: Release Process RPIPs
Proposer: LongForWisdom
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 11 - Call For Bounty Applications - Deadline is April 7 - #3 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Defer w/ Future Consideration
Score: 3
Comments: The GMC has decided to defer the decision on funding the Release Process RPIPs to Round 13. This decision reflects the need for further deliberation and clarity on the proposal. Key points from the decision include:
- Recognition that the idea is good and likely needed eventually, but current governance bandwidth is insufficient given other priorities.
- Concern that the proposal is too vague and open-ended, with a preference for more detailed preparatory research and clearer delineation of suggested changes.
- Agreement with sentiments that the project should be revisited post-Saturn, when it can become a high-value target.
Overall, the decision to defer reflects a multitude of varying opinions from the committee. The committee is still adjusting to the proposal and definition process, and will discuss this application further in the following round.
–
Name: Node Operator Research Study
Proposer: OpenUX
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: Research
Link to Application: Round 12 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is May 7 - #2 by GeorgiaOpenUX
Decision: Decline
Score: 2
Comments: The GMC has decided to decline further funding for the node operator research study. This decision is based on concerns about the value and impact of the initial study. Key points from the decision include:
- The DAO paid the agreed-upon amount, and while the final product was high quality in terms of production, it has not yielded many actionable items.
- The post-report survey indicated that not enough value was provided to justify additional funding.
- The original payout, which amounted to nearly $50k due to a price lock, is considered sufficient compensation for the work delivered.
Overall, the decision to decline further funding reflects the need to prioritize initiatives that provide clear, actionable benefits and ensure efficient use of DAO resources.
Bounties That Need Definitions
GMC is requesting support writing a definition for the following bounties that lacked one:
Rocket Pool Support PaymentsSmart Node UI WireframesSmart Node v2 HTTP API OpenApi 3 spec and codegen- DAO Engagement Discussion
Update: Shortly after the award announcement, the GMC decided they will no longer require definitions for Support Payments, UI Wireframes, or SmartNode OpenApi.
Member Participation
Ken did not participate in the decisions this round.
Members voted on many process changes and spent a considerable amount of time discussing the support work process.
Final Voting Stages
DAO Engagement Discussions moved to a ranked choice vote, where (Award at 66%) was the winning decision.