Name of Grant
rETH Growth Incubator Review
What is the work being proposed?
Fund reviewers for the rETH Growth Incubator bounty.
Is there any related work this builds off of?
This process was previously used for the Rapid Research Incubator bounty. It was submitted as a retrospective award application on February 10, 2024. (Round 9 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is February 11 - #5 by ShfRyn).
Will the results of this project be entirely open source
Yes, the feedback will be shared with the entire DAO.
Benefits
| Group | Benefits |
|---|---|
| Potential rETH holders | This research will help improve rETH supply so that more rETH can be owned (non-full deposit pool) for cheaper (less premium) and better APR (less drag) |
| rETH holders | Keeping the deposit pool from filling up will help increase rETH’s yield. |
| Potential NOs | RPL valuation is based in large part on capture of market share; this bounty aims to improve the ability of the market to correctly value RPL, as well as the ability for the protocol to grow. |
| NOs | See potential NOs and RPL holders |
| Community | High-quality efficient review work is essential for any DAO. This seeks support from members of the RP community. |
| RPL holders | RPL valuation is based in large part on capture of market share; this bounty aims to improve the ability of the market to correctly value RPL, as well as the ability for the protocol to grow. |
Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals, would stand to benefit from this grant?
N/A
Work
Who is doing the work?
An evaluation committee comprising a minimum of 3 members (preferably 5) will be appointed to assess the merit of the rETH Demand Incubator submissions. The committee selection process will involve a combination of volunteers expressing their interest publicly and the GMC reaching out for volunteers. The committee creation process is expected to last one to two weeks but can conclude at any time after the selection of 5 members. Members of the evaluation committee are ineligible for rewards from this specific bounty.
What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?
The members of the review committee will be selected by the GMC based on their individual experience and deep knowledge in specific topics.
What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?
Reviewers will have two weeks to evaluate the submissions and provide their feedback. They will submit a sheet similar to this one (Rapid Research Review Scores - Google Sheets). It will follow the rubric outlined in the rETH Demand Incubator bounty.
Reviewers will be tasked with selecting 2 to 3 promising submissions and providing their own insights and suggestions for implementation.
A discussion call will be scheduled based on the most convenient time for the majority of reviewers. Those unable to attend must provide brief notes or updates on their findings prior to the call.
How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?
N/A
How will the work be maintained after delivery?
This effort is part of the broader initiative called Operation rETH. Following the review, the GMC will approve several tasks, which will then be converted into bounties. A board will be created to track the progress of these tasks.
The Discord channel can be found here (Discord)
Costs
What is the acceptance criteria?
Following the directions provided by the GMC and submitting feedback at the specified deadlines.
What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much USD $ and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?
$3-000 - 5,000
$1,000 per reviewer x (3-5 reviewers)
This expects each reviewer to spend 10 hours reviewing the submissions.
This is based on the survey findings from the Rapid Research review, where reviewers reported separately:
- 8 hours reviewing
- 7 hours not including meetings
- 14 hours total ( ~10 hours reading all the submissions, asking questions, thinking about them, taking notes, 2 hours for meeting plus prep for meeting, 2 hours for scoring and making sure my scores were consistent across all submissions)
- 8.5 hours (5.5 hours summarizing, 3 hours grading)
Is the applicant requesting RPL or LUSD?
RPL
How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?
The review materials and process is provided by the GMC.
What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?
Upon project completion, reviewers may be asked to report the number of hours they spent on the review. The GMC could then calculate the average and compensate them at a rate of $100 per hour.
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).
During the Rapid Research Incubator, one member of the GMC and two core team members acted as reviewers. I recommend allowing GMC members and team members to qualify to be reviewers and for compensation.
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?
No