Round 15 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is August 7

[ShfRyn]

This thread is for applications for Rocket Pool’s July 7, 2024 - August 7, 2024 grants. Please only post grant 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 (link) 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 August 7, 2024 at 23:59 (11:59 PM) UTC will be considered. Any grants posted after that deadline will be carried over to the next award period.

This is the expected schedule for round 15:

• Application Period (July 7 - August 7)
• Scoring Deadline (August 20)
• Final Voting Amendments, Discussion and Finalization (August 21 - August 24)
• Award Announcement (August 25)

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.

Grants Rubric

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

• If the application is successful, to what extent does it further the GMC goals?

• To what extent can the application be feasibly carried out by the person(s) proposed to complete it?

• If the application is successful, how large is the benefit to the protocol relative to the size of the proposed costs

Grant Application Template

Please copy paste the template below into a reply. Answer the questions there, feel free to remove or add sections based on relevance.

## Name of Grant

### What is the work being proposed?

### Is there any related work this builds off of?

### Will the results of this project be entirely open source ([MIT](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT), [GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html), [Apache](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0), [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license or similar)? If not, which parts will not be, why, and under what license will they be published?



## Benefit

<please enter N/A where appropriate>

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

### Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals, would stand to benefit from this grant?



## Work

### Who is doing the work?

### What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?

### What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?

### How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?

### How will the work be maintained after delivery?



## Costs

### What is the acceptance criteria?

### What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much USD $ and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?

### Is the applicant requesting RPL or LUSD?

### How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?

### What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?



## Conflict of Interest

### Does the person or persons proposing the grant 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 grant).

### Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

[ArtDemocrat]

Rocket Pool MEV Theft and Loss Report - Grant Application

General Information

Continuing the MEV Theft Reporting bounty published by @Valdorff and @ramana in July 2023, @ramana and @ArtDemocrat submit this grant request to fund an updated research paper on this matter, aiming to:

• Extend the analysis to July 2024
• Report on the state of protocol revenue loss coming from (a) MEV theft and (b) neglected revenue due to vanilla block building (see red arrows below)
• Evaluate the need for creating tools and mechanisms to analyse protocol revenue loss on an ongoing basis, since MEV loss currently represents a topic within the Rocket Pool protocol which is not actively monitored or audited

What is the work being proposed?

Rocket Pool currently lacks visibility on

1. Whether MEV Theft is happening, how often, and at what magnitude, and,
2. How big are the MEV opportunity costs from validators running without registered MEV relays (i.e. producing vanilla blocks).

We aim to bring transparency to this topic by focusing on the following routes of MEV Loss within the Rocket Pool protocol:

During the first phase of the research conducted by @ramana and @ArtDemocrat on this topic in March 2024 we were able to generate the findings listed below. (see Initial Report)

However, we realized quickly that we needed a more detailed investigation of MEV fee recipients and value by cross-referencing additional data sources and methods. For example, some of the findings presented below are contradictory between the sources of information we looked at in our March 2024 research. Therefore, upon the funding of this grant application we aim to expand our methodology to include raw data from each block’s slot, data obtained directly from relays, beaconcha.in data, and NonFungibleYokem’s mevmonitor database.

Regarding the insights of the initial report, we found that up until slot 8,499,999 (2024-02-25 01:20:11 UTC):

1. Rocket Pool has faced 51 cases of MEV Theft (i.e. incorrect fee recipient) since the grace period ended after the Redstone release (39 opted-in smoothing pool, 12 opted-out). While this represents an incidence rate of 0.06% across all blocks proposed since the grace period ended, this seems to become more prevalent in recent slots (+34 more cases vs. the 17 cases identified in the aforementioned initial MEV Theft report). The ETH loss due to these MEV Theft cases stands at 6.29 ETH (+4.28 ETH more vs the 2.11 ETH identified @valdorff and @ramana’s initial MEV Theft report). (see Report Section: “MEV Theft”)

2. If we also consider slots where no mev_reward was registered for a proposed block, we see a total of 883 cases where an incorrect fee recipient was used by RP validators, raising the theft incidence within RP to 1.02% (see Report Section: “MEV Theft”). The loss from these cases is covered in point 4. below.

3. Rocket Pool has faced seven repeat offenders (i.e. node addresses that have used an incorrect fee recipient), of which one gathered MEV 19 times outside of the protocol-defined fee recipients. The largest loss after the grace period ended was of 1.66 ETH (slot: 6376024, fee recepient: btoast777.eth). However, the MEV was manually returned to the smoothing pool by the node operator in this specific case (see Report Section: “MEV Theft”).

4. Rocket Pool validators have proposed 6,651 vanilla blocks in the timeframe analyzed (3.3k SP operators and 3.3k non-opted-in operators, which are +2,676 cases more vs the 3,975 identified by the initial report). This led to a revenue loss of 620.4 ETH (+452.4 ETH more vs the 168 ETH loss identified by the initial report). For this reason, subject to this fact being confirmed by the research to be funded by this grant, we would recommend the Rocket Pool protocol to move to MEV capture Phase 3 “Required” as soon as possible, to minimize losses coming from vanilla block building (see Report Section: “Neglected Revenue”).

Will the results of this project be entirely open source?

The results of this project will be entirely open source, licensed under the MIT License.

Benefit

Group	Benefits
Potential rETH holders	rETH’s APR can be proactively protected by shedding light on this matter and acting on time. A competitive rETH EPR is tablestakes to drive demand towards rETH.
rETH holders	see above
Potential NOs	Higher staking APR by enforcing MEV relayer usage (either individually, or for the entire smoothing pool NO cohort.
NOs	N/A
Community	Sensitize the Rocket Pool community to the relevance of honest acting (as we observe and report misbehaviour), and to the maximization of MEV rewards for the sake of protocol competitiveness.
RPL holders	see points above → demand to mint/create rETH and Rocket Pool validators → direct buying pressure (to spin-up validators) and indirect RPL buying pressure (secondary market premium = incentives to spin-up validators)

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

Anyone who is looking to research MEV capture and distribution within a protocol can leverage the scripts and tools created for this research.

Work

What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?

Steps:

1. Expansion of current data-collection scripts in order to cover draw data from each block’s slot, data obtained directly from relays, beaconcha.in data, and NonFungibleYokem’s own database. (PIC: @ramana)

2. Data analysis, MEV theft and loss logic definition, and report production (PIC: @ArtDemocrat)

We aim to complete this report by mid-September.

What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?

An initial version of the scripts and tools required to produce the final product exists. Those were used to produce the first version of the MEV Theft and Loss Report by @valdorff and @ramana, as well as the update done by @ramana and @ArtDemocrat earlier this year. As per the objective of this grant application, we now aim to expand and refine these in order to ensure the findings presented are tested across several sources of information. @ramana and @ArtDemocrat have the skills to execute this task, as demonstrated in the March 2024 report produced.

How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?

The sole purpose of this grant is to expand the data sources used for the initial MEV Theft and Loss report produced by @ramana and @ArtDemocrat, in order to be able to test sources against each other and create a logic which objectively allows us to define MEV theft and loss. Testing would be therefore part of the research itself.

How will the work be maintained after delivery?

All work will be documented on GitHub and linked (if desired / useful) to the Rocket Pool Guides, so that anybody can leverage the data mining and data analysis infrastructure created for this grant.

Costs

The total amount of hours invested in the initial research by @ramana and @ArtDemocrat are estimated at approximately 100 hours (incl. both, @ramana and @ArtDemocrat). No specific tools or software were used which have a direct cost attached to them.

Assuming a similar amount of work for this second iteration, we look for a retroactive grant of $15,000 paid out in RPL. As reference, the compensation awarded to the initial report created by @valdorff and @ramana scoped $15,000-20,000 for the core deliverable. Therefore we come to such compensation request based on 1) how critical this work is for the protocol but 2) the fact that the initial data mining infrastructure from @valdorff and @ramana’s report research could be partially leveraged for the goal of this grant application.

We seek a single pay-out for this retroactive grant, split 60% for @ArtDemocrat and 40% for @ramana.

How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?

The first report created by @ramana and @ArtDemocrat serves as the blueprint of what the final product of this grant would be. It servers, therefore, as a reference on whether the work deliverables match this grant’s application scope.

What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?

To put this cost into perspective, please consider that initial report (numbers TBC by the final product of this grant application) surfaced a loss of 626.69 ETH (6.29 ETH from direct theft + 620.40 ETH from vanilla block building). This represents 456.68 ETH more in losses vs the initial MEV Theft Reporting bounty of @Valdorff and @ramana.

If the community, GMC, and pDAO see value in establishing the proposed ongoing reporting mechanism for MEV Loss tracking, we would have one more “heavy-lift” grant ahead of us to create the regular reporting tools which can then be maintained whenever necessary in a less cost-intensive way.

Conflicts of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the grant 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 grant).

Both, @ramana and @ArtDemocrat benefit directly from this retroactive grant request.

Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

Not based on our current knowledge.

Data Structure and Sources

For reference, the data structure and sources which would be used to create the report for which we are requesting this grant are as follows.
Note this is our current working draft and may be subject to small changes.

Current data columns:
slot,max_bid,max_bid_relay,mev_reward,mev_reward_relay,proposer_index,is_rocketpool,node_address,in_smoothing_pool,correct_fee_recipient,priority_fees,avg_fee,eth_collat_ratio

Desired data columns:
# Basic slot and block info
slot,                        # slot number
proposer_index,              # proposer index [this and the rest empty for missed blocks]
raw_fee_recipient,           # fee recipient specified for the block
last_tx_recipient,           # target of the last transaction in the block
last_tx_value,               # amount of ETH sent in the last transaction in the block
priority_fees,               # total ETH paid as transaction fees above the base fee in the block [only included when is_rocketpool and no max_bid]
# Basic RP info
is_rocketpool,               # whether the proposer was a Rocket Pool validator
node_address,                # Rocket Pool node that owns the proposer's validator [this and the rest empty for non-RP]
distributor_address,         # Rocket Pool node fee distributor address for the node
in_smoothing_pool,           # Whether the Rocket Pool node was in the smoothing pool (at this block)
avg_fee,                     # Rocket Pool average fee for the node (at this block)
eth_collat_ratio,            # Rocket Pool ETH collateralisation ratio for the node (at this block)
# Info we queried directly from the RP relays
max_bid,                     # top bid received by RP relays for this slot [this and the rest empty if no bids]
max_bid_relay,               # relays that received the top bid [;-separated]
mev_reward,                  # MEV reward claimed delivered by any RP relay [this and the rest empty if none claimed delivered]
mev_reward_relay,            # RP relays that claim to have delivered the MEV reward [;-separated]
relay_fee_recipient,         # Fee recipient according to the RP relay
# Info we get about relays from Butta
beaconcha_mev_reward,        # MEV reward claimed delivered by Beaconcha [this and the rest empty if none]
beaconcha_mev_reward_relay,  # Relays claimed delivered by Beaconcha [;-separated]
beaconcha_fee_recipient,     # MEV fee recipient according to Beaconcha
# Info we get about relays from Yokem
mevmonitor_max_bid,          # top bid received by any relays for this slot [this and the rest empty if no bids]
mevmonitor_max_bid_relay,    # relays that received the top bid [;-separated]
mevmonitor_mev_reward,       # MEV reward claimed delivered by any relay according to MevMonitor [this and the rest empty if none]
mevmonitor_mev_reward_relay, # Relays claiming to deliver according to MevMonitor [;-separated]
mevmonitor_fee_recipient     # Fee recipient addresses for deliveries above according to MevMonitor [;-separated]

[sahilbsb]

Name of Grant

BlockseBlock Hackathon for Rocket Pool

What is the work being proposed?

We will organize a hackathon for Rocket Pool where developers will build projects on Rocket Pool

Is there any related work this builds off of?

No

Will the results of this project be entirely open source (MIT, GPL, Apache, CC BY) license or similar)? If not, which parts will not be, why, and under what license will they be published?

Yes projects submitted in this hackathon will be open sourced

Benefit

Group	Benefits
Potential rETH holders	If the grant is successfully completed, will help in development of innovative tools, educational resources, and user-friendly interfaces that simplify the staking process for potential rETH holders. By fostering a collaborative environment for developers, we aim to produce solutions that make it easier for individuals to understand, participate in, and benefit from staking ETH with Rocket Pool. This increased accessibility and clarity will encourage more people to stake their ETH for rETH.
rETH holders	If the grant is successfully completed, will drive the creation of new applications and services that enhance the utility and value of rETH. Participants may develop features like portfolio management tools, integration with other DeFi platforms, and improved staking dashboards. These innovations will provide rETH holders with better tools to manage their assets, track their rewards, and maximize their returns, thereby enhancing their overall staking experience.
Potential NOs	If the grant is successfully completed, will produce resources and solutions tailored to onboarding new node operators, such as step-by-step guides, automated setup scripts, and user-friendly node management interfaces. By lowering the technical barriers and providing comprehensive support, the event will make it easier for individuals to set up and operate a Rocket Pool node, thereby expanding the network of node operators.
NOs	If the grant is successfully completed, the hackathon will encourage the development of advanced tools and enhancements that improve node performance, security, and monitoring. Innovations could include enhanced analytics, better alert systems, and more efficient node management solutions. These improvements will help current node operators optimize their operations, reduce downtime, and increase their staking rewards.
Community	If the grant is successfully completed, will strengthen the Rocket Pool community by fostering collaboration, innovation, and knowledge sharing among participants. It will create a platform for developers, stakers, and node operators to connect, exchange ideas, and work together on solutions that benefit the entire ecosystem. This collective effort will lead to a more vibrant, engaged, and empowered community, driving the growth and success of Rocket Pool.
RPL holders	If the grant is successfully completed, will boost the overall utility and demand for RPL by generating new use cases, integrations, and innovations within the Rocket Pool ecosystem. As the network grows and becomes more robust, the value and importance of RPL in securing and incentivizing participation will increase. This, in turn, will benefit RPL holders by potentially enhancing the value of their tokens.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals, would stand to benefit from this grant?

This hackathon will be exclusive to Rocket Pool and will benefit the Rocket pool ecosystem only.

Work

Who is doing the work?

The work will be conducted by the Blockseblock team. We have our experts and mentors who will take care of technical workshops along with hosting and organizing the hackathon.

What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?

BlockseBlock is a global hackathon hosting platform with a strong developer community in SE Asia. We are already a global hackathon platform for ICP blockchain. With our unique approach of providing personalized support to developers, we are helping thousands of builders start their projects in the web3 and blockchain domains. Some of the key stats of the platform:

• 100,000+ developers
• 600+ university partners
• 100+ hackathons
  Success Story:
  One of our flagship events, the Blockbash ICP Hackathon, saw remarkable participation and success:
• 3,500+ registrations
• 1,400+ developers
• 500+ projects submitted

What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?

Planning and Preparation Phase

• Finalizing hackathon theme and objectives.
• Setting dates and timeline for the hackathon.
• Creating marketing materials (images, social media posts, etc.).
• Contacting potential partners.
• Launching hackathon website and registration portal.
• Preparing hackathon agenda and schedule.
• Continuing promotion and registration drive.

Pre-Hackathon Phase

• Hosting pre-hackathon workshops to prepare participants.
• Sending regular updates to registered participants.
• Closing participant registration.
• Finalizing team formation and ensuring all participants are organized into teams.
• Finalizing and sending hacakthon agenda to all participants and stakeholders.

Hackathon Phase

• Mentorship sessions and progress check-ins.
• Final coding and development push.
• Submission of projects and presentations.
• Judging and evaluation of submitted projects.

Post-Hackathon Phase

• Follow-up with participants for feedback and testimonials.
• Distributing prizes and certificates.
• Sharing event highlights and success stories on social media and website.
• Preparing and submitting a final report to Rocket Pool.

The entire duration from start to end will take 7-8 weeks

How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?

N/A

How will the work be maintained after delivery?

After the hackathon, we will maintain continuous engagement with participants and encourage them to contribute actively to the ecosystem and further build their projects.

Costs

What is the acceptance criteria?

N/A

What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much USD $ and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?

We are requesting $12,500 over a period of 8 weeks. The payment schedule will be following:

1. $6,250 in starting
2. $3,125 after registration completion
3. $3,125 after the projects delivery

Also additionally we are requesting $5,000 as the prize money for the hackathon which can be directly paid to winners.

Is the applicant requesting RPL or LUSD?

RPL

How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?

We will share the project details submitted in the hackathon with the team.

What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?

We have created this proposal after maximum optimization on the cost front.

Conflict of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the grant 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 grant).

No

Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

Yes if this goes well it will help us attract new projects hosting hacakthons on our platform resulting in more revenue for us.

[Pat_The_Weekly_Orbit]

What grant is being renewed?

The Weekly Orbit

What work from the previous proposal was completed?

The podcast has produced weekly episodes since the previous grant (63 episodes now in total).

What work from the previous proposal is ongoing or pending?

Work continues weekly as this is an ongoing project.

What work was not originally planned, but completed, if any?

N/A

What work is newly slated since the previous proposal?

There is currently no new work outside the original scope of producing weekly episodes.

Are the results of this project entirely open source (MIT, GPL, Apache, CC BY license or similar)? If not, which parts are not, and why not?

N/A. All episodes can be found on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.

Benefits - enter N/A where appropriate

What metrics can you share on the success of the project?

Across the crypto podcast industry, viewership has not rebounded to the highs seen in 2021.

Despite this trend and the decrease in TVL for Rocket Pool as a protocol, our YouTube views have increased by 7%, watch time has risen by 22%, and subscribers have grown by 30.

The Weekly Orbit has 126 YouTube subscribers.

Top viewed episodes

Weekly YouTube views

Spotify analytics

Apple Podcasts listeners per episode.

Social media interest in crypto hasn’t bounced back to the levels seen during the 2021 bull run, as seen in the chart below. Over the past six months, the decline in RPL price and generally low sentiment in the crypto market have posed challenges for the growth of The Weekly Orbit. This trend isn’t unique to our podcast; major crypto podcasts and news channels are also struggling in the current market. Once wider audience interest in crypto returns, we anticipate significant growth for The Weekly Orbit. Despite these challenges, The Weekly Orbit has still experienced growth since the last grant period.

In less specific terms, how has this project improved the Rocket Pool ecosystem or benefited the Ethereum ecosystem?

The Weekly Orbit provides weekly content for those interested in being a node operator, an rETH holder, or are interested in rETH or RPL DeFi integrations.

What sets our show apart from other Rocket Pool media is our unique approach. Instead of simply reporting the top stories each week, we engage in two-way conversations, allowing for in-depth discussions and the sharing of opinions on the most important topics. Our content caters to a diverse audience, ranging from beginners to advanced users, ensuring everyone finds value in our discussions.

The Weekly Orbit is essential in raising public awareness of Rocket Pool. In the fast-paced crypto world, where attention spans are short, it’s vital for Rocket Pool to maintain multiple media outlets. This ensures continued engagement and effective communication about the exciting developments within the Rocket Pool ecosystem. Over the next six months, we anticipate covering significant events such as the release of NodeSet’s Constellation, pre-Saturn protocol changes, and possibly Saturn 1. We will provide comprehensive coverage of these exciting tokenomics developments.

Team

The team consists of Pat and Waq.

Who has done the work, and have there been any changes to the team?

Pat and Waq produce the weekly show. There have been no changes to the team.

How have the individual constituents of the team been compensated?

The prior grant was split 80/20 between Pat and Waq, respectively.

How has maintenance been performed since the delivery of the project?

The podcast is maintained on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.

Payment and Verification

Have the acceptance criteria been met?

The acceptance criteria have been met. We produced weekly episodes throughout this grant period, with the exception of one week off for vacation in May. The Weekly Orbit’s viewership and awareness have increased. However, we believe there’s still significant growth potential for The Weekly Orbit as Rocket Pool expands, the RPL token performs better, and the general sentiment in the crypto market improves.

What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much RPL and over what period of time is the applicant requesting? Does this differ from the original approved amount?

Over the last six months, Rocket Pool has experienced a decline in interest and a reduction in mini-pools.

We understand that challenging times for the protocol require budget tightening. Therefore, we are requesting only $3,900 to produce approximately 26 episodes over the next six months. This amounts to $150 per episode, roughly half of the standard rate for Rocket Pool media production ($290-$300). We request that the grant be paid in LUSD, with an 80/20 split between Pat and Waq.

We are optimistic about Rocket Pool’s growth and the rising interest in crypto over the next six months. We will reassess the grant payment per episode during the next round.

Is there a measurable Return on Investment for the project?

Quantifying the return on investment for The Weekly Orbit, like many media and community engagement initiatives, poses a challenge. However, its impact can be gauged qualitatively by noting the considerable positive influence it has had on both the existing Rocket Pool community and newcomers. It’s a positive contribution to Rocket Pool.

What is the breakdown of spending on development for the original grant vs. maintenance?

N/A

Conflict of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the grant 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 grant).

Pat has no conflict of interests.

Waq is a member of the GMC and the IMC. He receives donations in the form of RPL from anonymous and non-anonymous members of the community. He also received money from a gitcoin grants round the majority of which was distributed to the community. The gifts and donations have no impact on the content of The Weekly Orbit.

Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

Rocket Pool’s success is our only passion. Like many, both Pat and Waq have received airdrops from other protocols which aren’t covered on The Weekly Orbit and which will eventually be sold.

[ShfRyn]

Notice: This message marks the closing of the fifteenth (15) round of Rocket Pool grant 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 August 25th. 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.