The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 28 (August 7 - September 7) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round.
Let the marketing begin!!
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 October 10, 2025 at 23:59 UTC.
Current GMC Roster
- Ken
- Waq
- Dr Doofus
- Destroyaaa
- Steely
- Kevster.eth
- sckuzzle
- LenofTawa
- ramana
General Updates
- First BOLD Converstion - The first BOLD swap was executed on September 15. Several members helped with the process. Most notably Kevster, sckuzzle, Valdorff and Trooper were able to assist.
- STAR - An 8-month progress update can be read here. The committee voted to extend the STAR overseer budget an additional 8 months. This covers payments from October 2025 to May 2026. Funds will be taken from the remaining STAR budget (BA192403).
- Year 3 Roster - In a couple weeks, the process for nominating and selecting the third year of GMC members will commence.
Application Breakdown
- Total Grant Applications: 5
- Total Bounty Applications: 0
- Total Retro Applications: 1
- Total Applications Transferred From Last Round: 0
- Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $128,767.20
- Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $36,231
- Value of Treasury: $236,000
- Total Amount Reserved: $282,000
USD values calculated at the time GMC began deliberating on applications.
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Applicant | Title | Decision | Amount (USD) | Avg Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA282504 | RP Team | Bankless & Defiant Advertising | Approve | $56,750.00 | 4.29 |
| GA282505 | Token Motion | Subscription Renewal | Approve | $29,970.00 | 4.5 |
| RA282501 | Token Motion | Subscription Retro | Approve | $2,797.20 | 4.5 |
| GA282503 | Holdex | Micro-Influencer Campaigns | Defer w/ Future Consideration | 3.17 | |
| GA282501 | Valion Digital Services | Two-Node Failover Architecture | Decline | 1.25 | |
| GA282502 | Ether Guild | Virtual Course | Decline | 1.5 |
Detailed Award Results
Name: Bankless & Defiant Advertising
Proposer: Rocket Pool Team
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #5 by maverick
Decision: Approve
Awarded Funding: $56,750
Requested Funding: $56,750
Score: 4.29
Comments: The GMC approves a 100% award for the Rocket Pool Team’s Bankless and The Defiant advertising campaign proposal, recognizing it as a high-leverage opportunity to amplify rETH awareness at a critical moment for the protocol.
-
Strategic Timing with Team Alignment:
Members broadly agreed that a major marketing push is needed in advance of Saturn 1’s launch, and this campaign—co-funded by the Rocket Pool team—presents a timely and coordinated effort. The delay in Saturn’s timeline provides space to prepare and execute a more impactful campaign, aligning both messaging and resources around a shared goal. -
Strong Focus on rETH Demand:
There was near-unanimous consensus that rETH must be the singular focus of this campaign. While the proposal also mentions education for node operators, members stressed that the broader market opportunity lies in increasing rETH adoption. Committee members expect all campaign assets to prioritize rETH messaging, with minimal distraction from secondary themes. -
Matching Funds and High Value Opportunity:
The campaign’s 50% co-funding by the Rocket Pool dev team was seen as a strong endorsement and a cost-effective way to scale exposure. Members noted that the total value—up to $100K—would be difficult to replicate without matching support, making this an opportunistic use of GMC resources. -
Open Questions, But Willing to Proceed:
While some members raised concerns about the effectiveness of The Defiant or expressed skepticism about Bankless, the prevailing view was that the overall structure, timing, and backing from the core team justified the full award. Several members stated they had reservations but ultimately decided this was the right moment to go “all in” on rETH marketing. -
This is the largest coordinated marketing effort the GMC has considered to date, and the committee believes the opportunity justifies the scale. With the right execution—focused squarely on rETH adoption—it has the potential to drive meaningful results for Rocket Pool.
Name: Token Motion Subscription Renewal
Proposer: Token Motion
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #6 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Awarded Funding: $29,970
Requested Funding: $29,970
Score: 4.5
Comments: The GMC approves a 100% award of $29,970.00 for Token Motion’s Design Subscription Renewal, recognizing the consistent value of the work and its importance in advancing Rocket Pool’s brand and communications.
-
Proven Value and High-Quality Output:
The GMC has been broadly satisfied with the outcomes from the initial design subscription, with members praising the professional quality, consistency, and impact of the visual assets produced. The work has been credited with “upping Rocket Pool’s game” and filling a long-standing design gap in the protocol’s ecosystem. -
Timely Alignment with Saturn 1 Needs:
Several members noted that significant design work will be needed in the lead-up to Saturn 1, making this renewal especially timely. The presence of a reliable design partner ensures the protocol can respond quickly with updated visuals, pitch decks, documentation, and campaign assets when needed. -
Strong Community and Team Support:
Members expressed strong confidence in Sleety’s contributions, with comments highlighting satisfaction with both the creative output and the collaborative process. While a few members flagged the cost as relatively high, this concern was outweighed by the observed value, reliability, and versatility of the service. -
The GMC sees the continued subscription as a strategic investment in Rocket Pool’s communication capabilities. With strong past performance and clear upcoming needs, the committee unanimously supports renewal of the Token Motion design subscription.
Name: Subscription Retro
Proposer: Token Motion
Type: Retro
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #6 by ShfRyn
Decision: Approve
Awarded Funding: $2,797.20
Requested Funding: $2,797.20
Score: 4.5
Comments: The GMC approves a 100% award of $2,797.20 for the Token Motion Design Subscription Retro, recognizing it as fair compensation for additional work delivered beyond the scope of the original contract.
-
Reasonable Compensation for Extra Effort:
Multiple members confirmed that the additional work was clearly completed and warranted payment. The retro covers extra design tasks handled on short notice, and members agreed the request was proportional to the value provided. -
Efficient Use of Funds:
The retroactive amount is relatively small when viewed in the context of the full subscription cost, and several members noted that it was “worth it” and “reasonable.” The additional spend was considered minimal, especially given the importance of design continuity and responsiveness. -
Strong Track Record:
Sleety’s ongoing contributions have consistently met or exceeded expectations, and the retro fits into a pattern of reliable, high-quality output. This payment reinforces the GMC’s commitment to fair compensation for dependable partners.
The GMC supports this retroactive payment in full as a straightforward and justified recognition of additional work already delivered.
Name: Micro-Influencer Campaigns
Proposer: Holdex
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #4 by holdexio
Decision: Defer w/ Future Consideration
Requested Funding: $21,000+
Score: 3.17
Comments: The GMC defers a decision on Holdex’s Micro-Influencer Campaign application, citing the need for clearer timing alignment, further engagement from the applicant, and more information before making a funding commitment.
-
Initial Interest and Potential Value:
Several members expressed interest in the proposal’s potential to expand Rocket Pool’s reach through targeted influencer campaigns. The idea of running a three-month KOL manager service as a pilot was seen as reasonable by some, with members proposing a trial structure of $10.5K for management and $10–15K for campaign funding. The opportunity to test and evaluate impact—particularly ahead of Saturn 1—was noted as a possible strategic fit. -
Concerns About Timing and Overlap:
A key reason for the deferral was timing. With other marketing campaigns currently approved or under consideration, the GMC preferred to avoid overlapping initiatives in order to preserve budget and better measure effectiveness through A/B testing. The delayed Saturn 1 launch creates a potential opportunity to revisit this application when campaign sequencing can be more deliberate. -
Need for Greater Engagement:
Multiple members emphasized that they would like to meet with the Holdex team or see more direct community engagement before awarding a grant of this size. Concerns were raised about the lack of presence in Discord and uncertainty about whether the team understands Rocket Pool’s unique challenges and goals. Increased transparency and dialogue would help the committee better evaluate the fit. -
Further Clarity Requested:
There was interest in negotiating more well-defined success metrics. Members noted that metrics like “cost per view” or “cost per engagement” are less useful for Rocket Pool than more outcome-driven KPIs like cost per liquidity acquired. If reframed accordingly, some saw the potential for this to serve as a STAR-aligned initiative. -
Conclusion and Next Steps:
The GMC appreciates the strategic potential of this proposal and encourages Holdex to:-
Engage with the Rocket Pool community (especially the Marketing Committee)
-
Consider joining a future GMC call to present and answer questions
-
Explore a revised proposal with tighter targeting, clearer deliverables, and better-aligned KPIs
-
The application is deferred, with strong openness to future consideration once the above items are addressed and campaign timing can be better aligned with other initiatives.
Name: Two-Node Failover Architecture
Proposer: Valion Digital Services
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #2 by VALION
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $10,000
Score: 1.25
Comments: The GMC declines the Two-Node Failover Architecture proposal from Valion Digital Services, citing limited relevance, technical concerns, and overlap with existing infrastructure.
-
Redundancy with Existing Solutions:
Multiple members emphasized that Rocket Pool already has a functioning and battle-tested Rescue Node setup, which serves the core purpose of a failover system. As such, this proposal was widely seen as unnecessary. -
Limited Practical Application:
The committee struggled to identify a meaningful use case for the proposed architecture, especially in light of references to zk proving and automated failover strategies that did not align with Rocket Pool’s current needs. Several members noted the inclusion of excessive jargon. -
Lack of Technical Conviction:
Feedback from technical contributors—including conversations with Patches—further reinforced skepticism. Patches reportedly reviewed and dissected the proposal and found it lacking in substance or innovation. -
No Current Need or Strategic Fit:
While one member acknowledged the general value of standardized failover documentation, they agreed that this specific proposal offered no meaningful improvements beyond what already exists. Others flagged that the proposal may have been partially AI-generated.
Overall, the GMC concluded that the application does not meet a current need, overlaps with existing infrastructure, and fails to deliver clear, actionable value.
Name: Virtual Course
Proposer: Ether Guild
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 28 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #3 by 0xCaesarSevurus
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $15,000
Score: 1.5
Comments: The GMC declines the Ether Guild Virtual Course application, citing lack of alignment with Rocket Pool’s educational goals, unclear impact on rETH adoption, and concerns around messaging and value.
-
Limited Relevance to Rocket Pool Mission:
Several members noted that the proposal appears to focus more broadly on ETH education rather than specifically advancing understanding or adoption of Rocket Pool or rETH. The lack of direct mention of rETH in the initial pitch raised concerns that Rocket Pool would be only one of many staking options mentioned—if at all. -
Minimal Strategic Value:
The committee broadly questioned whether the course would deliver meaningful value to Rocket Pool. While one member saw potential in viewing the course as an advertising opportunity, the majority felt that the impact would be negligible compared to other more targeted marketing or educational initiatives. -
Funding Prioritization and Optics:
Cost was another point of discussion, not because the amount was high ($15,000), but because of who was requesting it. Some members felt that the high-profile individuals involved could easily fund the initiative themselves, and that using GMC funds—especially amid tight treasury conditions—was not appropriate in this case. -
Concerns About Target Audience and Messaging:
There was discomfort with the idea of promoting complex crypto products like rETH to newcomers through a generalized course. Several members referenced prior failures in educational grants and warned against being perceived as trying to convince inexperienced users to stake through Rocket Pool.
While the GMC supports education as a core mission, this proposal lacked the specificity, targeting, and alignment needed to justify funding.
Member Participation
All members participated in the decision process. There were no conflicts of interest.
Final Voting Stages
No members chose to reject the entire slate.
–
To learn more about the decision-making process or to engage with the committee, reach out to ShfRyn (myself) for an invite to the GMC server.