The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 40 (August 7 - September 7) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round.
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 11, 2026 at 23:59 UTC.
Current GMC Roster
- Ken
- Waq
- Dr Doofus
- Destroyaaa
- Steely
- sckuzzle
- Epineph
Application Breakdown
Total Grant Applications: 10
Total Bounty Applications: 0
Total Retro Applications: 0
Total Applications Transferred From Last Round: 0
Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $101,680
Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $27,500
Value of Treasury: $49,137.93
Total Amount Reserved: $66,787.50 ($45,000 for Saturn 2, $15,000 for Chainlink Oracle)
USD values calculated at the time GMC began deliberating on applications.
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Applicant | Title | Decision | Amount (USD) | Avg Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA402605 | Patches | Rescue Node - Top Up | Approve | $ 680.00 | 4.33 |
| GA402601 | Soloking | MCP Server and Guarded AI Agent for Node Operators | Decline | $ 8,000.00 | 1.8 |
| GA402602 | Ashwin Goyal | Proof-of-rETH — independent verification and live proof-of-backing for rETH | Decline | $ 28,000.00 | 1.2 |
| GA402603 | Juggervault | rETH Collateral Integration for Tokenized Energy Assets | Decline | $ 30,000.00 | 1.33 |
| GA402604 | Akira Nakao | Smart Node Upgrade Preflight | Decline | $ 5,000.00 | 1.33 |
| GA402606 | Alireza | Node Readiness Evidence Toolkit | Decline | $ 5,000.00 | 1.5 |
| GA402607 | Creatives Onchain | Rocket Pool Upgrade Effects Gate | Decline | $ 7,480.00 | 1 |
| GA402608 | Crackdevs | Smartnode Safe Recovery Planner and Per-Key Diagnosis | Decline | $ 5,800.00 | 1.83 |
| GA402609 | Gospel Ifeadi | Smartnode Published-Artifact Regression Harness | Decline | $ 4,800.00 | 1.4 |
| GA402610 | DappsoverApps | RocketStorage Key Registry and Structural Diff | Decline | $ 6,800.00 | 1.33 |
Detailed Award Results
Name: Rescue Node - Top Up
Proposer: Patches
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #6 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Awarded Funding: $680
Requested Funding: $680
Score: 4.33
Comments: The committee has approved $680 to cover the four remaining months at $170/mo. There was broad agreement that the Rescue Node remains an important piece of Rocket Pool infrastructure and should continue to be funded. The main discussion was not whether to support it, but how to structure the additional funding in a way that keeps long-term operating costs under control. Several reviewers preferred using short-term bridge funding to maintain the current service while the GMC works with Patches on a more sustainable configuration. Members specifically raised the possibility of reducing client redundancy, using pruned nodes where technically appropriate, or paying more upfront for infrastructure that would lower recurring costs over time. Others were comfortable temporarily covering the increased monthly cost rather than making immediate changes that could affect reliability. The committee ultimately favored maintaining continuity of the Rescue Node while using the current funding period to review its design and expenses in more detail. The expectation is that Patches and the GMC can evaluate lower-cost options without risking service availability or making premature infrastructure reductions.
Name: MCP Server and Guarded AI Agent for Node Operators
Proposer: Soloking
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #2 by soloking
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $8,000
Score: 1.8
Comments: The committee generally viewed the proposal as a credible and potentially interesting idea, but did not see sufficient demonstrated demand or need within the Rocket Pool node operator community to justify the requested funding. Several reviewers felt the proposed functionality could already be achieved through existing AI tools without requiring a dedicated MCP server, reducing the value of building and maintaining a separate solution. Cost was also a major concern. Members felt the requested amount was too high relative to the likely level of adoption, especially given the GMC’s limited treasury and the need to prioritize proposals with clearer protocol impact. Reviewers also raised the possibility of ongoing support and maintenance costs if node operators needed assistance deploying or using the system. Finally, there were security concerns around allowing AI agents to interact with node infrastructure that may have access to sensitive credentials or private keys. The committee would need stronger evidence that these risks were appropriately mitigated before supporting such a system. More broadly, reviewers noted that proposals are easier to evaluate favorably when the applicant has engaged with the Rocket Pool community beforehand and demonstrated a clear understanding of node operator needs. In this case, the combination of uncertain demand, high cost, potential security and support overhead, and limited prior validation led the GMC to decline the application.
Name: Proof-of-rETH — independent verification and live proof-of-backing for rETH
Proposer: Ashwin Goyal
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #3 by Ashwin
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $28,000
Score: 1.2
Comments: Reviewers were broadly aligned that the proposal did not address a current priority or demonstrated need for Rocket Pool. The requested funding was also viewed as disproportionately high relative to the expected value and impact. Several members additionally expressed concern about the quality and originality of the application, including signs of heavy AI-generated content without enough protocol-specific depth. Given the limited need, weak cost justification, and lack of clear demand, the GMC declined the proposal.
Name: rETH Collateral Integration for Tokenized Energy Assets
Proposer: Juggervault
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #4 by hendobox
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $30,000
Score: 1.33
Comments: Reviewers felt the proposal was too expensive relative to its unclear benefit to Rocket Pool and did not address an identified protocol priority. There was also significant uncertainty around the underlying project, the applicant, and the viability of the proposed energy-asset integration. The committee noted that a proposal this specialized would require much stronger community engagement, validation, and subject-matter confidence before funding. Given the high cost, limited familiarity with the project, and additional execution and investment risk, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Smart Node Upgrade Preflight
Proposer: Akira Nakao
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #5 by akiranakaoiz
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $5,000
Score: 1.33
Comments: Reviewers generally felt the proposal addressed a relatively minor problem that does not currently justify the requested cost. Most Rocket Pool node operators are already comfortable with the command line, and operators concerned about upgrades can test them on testnet before deploying to mainnet. The committee also noted that Smart Node development is primarily controlled by the core team, so this type of feature should first be discussed and coordinated with them rather than independently funded by the GMC. Given the limited expected benefit, unclear ownership, and cost, the application was declined.
Name: Node Readiness Evidence Toolkit
Proposer: Alireza
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #7 by alireza
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $5,000
Score: 1.5
Comments: Reviewers generally felt the proposal addressed a problem that is already well covered by existing Ethereum node specifications, community resources, and operator knowledge. The committee did not see strong evidence that node readiness is a significant pain point requiring a dedicated tool. The requested cost was also viewed as far too high for the expected value. Several members felt this would be more appropriate as a small community side project or microgrant, potentially in the ~$500 range, rather than a multi-thousand-dollar grant. Given the limited need, existing alternatives, and poor cost-to-impact ratio, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Rocket Pool Upgrade Effects Gate
Proposer: Creatives Onchain
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #8 by CreativesOnchain
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $7,480
Score: 1
Comments: Reviewers did not see a clear current need for the proposed tool or a problem that the GMC should prioritize solving. The proposal was also viewed as difficult to understand, with insufficient clarity around exactly what would be built and how it would benefit Rocket Pool. Given the unclear value proposition, limited demonstrated need, and lack of a compelling use case, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Smartnode Safe Recovery Planner and Per-Key Diagnosis
Proposer: Crackdevs
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #9 by Crackdevs
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $5,800
Score: 1.83
Comments: Reviewers acknowledged that the proposal may be addressing a real Smart Node bug or recovery issue, but felt this is primarily within the core team’s domain rather than something the GMC should independently fund. The committee also felt the requested cost was too high for a targeted fix. If the issue proves significant or becomes more common, members favored coordinating with the Rocket Pool team first and determining whether it should be addressed in a future Smart Node update or through a smaller, more focused engagement. Given the unclear ownership, relatively limited urgency, and high price, the GMC declined the application for now.
Name: Smartnode Published-Artifact Regression Harness
Proposer: Gospel Ifeadi
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #10 by Lockedin
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $4,800
Score: 1.4
Comments: Reviewers felt the proposal addressed Smart Node development and testing work that falls outside the GMC’s primary domain and would be more appropriately handled by the Rocket Pool core team. The committee also did not see a demonstrated need significant enough to justify GMC funding. Given the limited expected benefit and lack of fit with the GMC’s responsibilities, the application was declined.
Name: RocketStorage Key Registry and Structural Diff
Proposer: DappsoverApps
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 40 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is September 7 - #11 by DappsoverApps
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $6,800
Score: 1.33
Comments: Reviewers did not see a clear need for the proposed work and felt it falls outside the GMC’s primary domain. If this functionality is considered necessary, members felt it should be discussed and coordinated directly with the Rocket Pool core team. Given the limited demonstrated need and unclear fit within the GMC’s responsibilities, the application was declined.
Member Participation
Six out of seven members participated in the decision process.
Final Voting Stages
There were no amendments declared or votes to reject the slate.
–
To learn more about the decision-making process or to engage with the committee, reach out to ShfRyn for an invite to the GMC server.