In order to keep the application threads clear of discussions (to make it easier for committee members to read and score them), please use this thread for any and all questions and discussions of round 12 period of grant, bounty, and retrospective award applications.
Do you have any support for this claim?
we requested a budget of $50,000 to conduct the work, but agreed to deliver it at a reduced rate in order to prove the value to the GMC and wider community, with the option to request retrospective funding later.
https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/sep-1-9-2023-grants-bounties-retrospective-awards-round-results/2226 says
If the project is successful, the GMC has expressed a strong inclination towards providing additional funding for future research projects initiated by the applicant.
I read this as “if the work is strong we’ll be excited to work together again”.
A quick search didn’t turn up anything else. My feelings on this retro depend considerably on what expectations were set, so documentation of something stronger would be relevant to me.
@GeorgiaOpenUX you say the work is open source. Under what license? Where can I see the license name/text?
OpenUX
Original Commentary:
The GMC and the applicant have collaboratively negotiated the project with a revised budget of $33,300. This budget adjustment aims to facilitate the GMC’s assessment of whether the research outcomes can be effectively leveraged to enhance the protocol. Furthermore, the GMC has expressed a keen interest in doubling the number of node operators within a six-month timeframe. To achieve this goal, they have closely collaborated with the applicant to develop a project designed to enhance various metrics, including node operator growth. If the project is successful, the GMC has expressed a strong inclination towards providing additional funding for future research projects initiated by the applicant.
Souce: Sep 1-9 2023 Grants/Bounties/Retrospective Awards Round Results
The survey was intended to complement the primary metric of achieving a 2x node operator growth within six months. It’s purpose, was in the event of a scenario where the GMC received valuable actionable items but faced constraints such as negligence or time limitations, hindering prompt action on the proposed ideas.
(Disclaimer: The following views are solely my own and do not reflect those of the grants and management committee.)
I believe the primary consensus was that the GMC didn’t receive anything groundbreaking that they hadn’t already discussed or was not already working on.
Here are the five major suggestions they outlined in their report (page 65 - 70). These are mainly discussed in the context of the GMC. Valdorff had a more detailed write-up for each of these:
-
NO Intro Course
Shortly before the publishing of the report, the GMC had recently funded Rocket School, and Rocket Pool University. It didn’t make sense to put more funding into education when there were already multiple projects funded and underway. -
Decentralization Scoreboard
The GMC funded a bounty for (BA062304) RP Scorecard which is still actively being worked on. -
Conference Countdown Collaborations
Rocket Pool’s primary conference footprint is at ETH Denver. We made a huge step forward hosting and funding an entire side-event, Rocket Lift-Off, this year. -
Personalized Learning Journey
Shortly before the publishing of the report, the GMC had recently funded Rocket School, and Rocket Pool University. -
ROI Calculator, incl. Investment ROI & Tax Guide
We have some calculators here. IMO a tax guide would be extremely difficult due to the various tax jurisdictions and probably a liability to try and give clear advice. -
Email Newsletter Extended Onboarding
I don’t think we ever got past how to handle the privacy roadblock with this? Maybe the recent smartnode notifications feature and how communication will be handled will give us a better idea?
The GMC did convene with OpenUX to discuss actionable items. However, it appeared that the primary emphasis was on educational resources, which felt adequately addressed by the recent funding of Rocket School and Rocket University.
–
It’s important to note the amount of funding delivered over time in USD value. $50,000 was requested originally, and $33,300 was granted in RPL when RPL was $21. The grant was paid out as OpenUX hit milestones, and due to the way GMC handles price-locking, $21/RPL price was used moving forward.
Here was the USD value of payments at the time of payment:
| Date | RPL | RPL Price | Payment in USD | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| November 17, 2023 | 396.5 | $28 | $11,102 | milestone 1 |
| December 16, 2023 | 396.50 | $27 | $10,706 | milestone 2 |
| January 15, 2024 | 793 | $34 | $26,962 | milestone 3 |
The total USD paid (at time of payment) was $48,770.
3 Likes
I don’t think this should be considered one way or the other. They took on some risk that it would go the other way too. If we aren’t comfortable with how we lock price, we should change it.
Fwiw, I generically agree with the rest. The document was valuable, and provided some impetus here and there. I don’t think it was earth shattering to justify adding 50% to the agreed price based on results. As I said, if t there were expectations set, that could definitely change my mind.
I should have been more accurate. It’s not under a specific open source licence because it is not a technical development, this is ethnographic research. However, all the methods and results of our research are published freely.
You can also license your work under Creative Commons licenses: About CC Licenses - Creative Commons
1 Like
this is an interesting avenue, will look into it. thanks!
Regarding support retros, I’m gonna be against any recent time (at least for folks that have already gotten one retro).
I am currently seeing:
- folks asking for pay every month or two (heavy on gmc and community discussion
- pretty darn high pay ($90/hr at 25 hours per week is $117k - quite a decent salary and with part-time hours to boot)
- no mechanism to avoid farming
- no incentive for support folks to move towards a more balanced system.
I’m currently most convinced by something like epi’s suggestion in
Funding Support Moving Forward - #13 by epineph. The core bit is that we essentially determine total value and split the pie based on metrics. This means when pay is high (not a lot of help around), more help is incentivized. And when many are helping, we spend less per help-hour. I do still have a concern in that hours may not be created equal among all support folks. Anyhow - I’m not advocating for a particular solution atm, but I am advocating against disincentivizing coming up with a solution (which I believe is now the status quo).
4 Likes