The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 41 (September 7 - October 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 November 8, 2026 at 23:59 UTC.
Current GMC Roster
- Ken
- Waq
- Dr Doofus
- Destroyaaa
- Steely
- sckuzzle
- Epineph
Application Breakdown
Total Grant Applications: 9
Total Bounty Applications: 0
Total Retro Applications: 1
Total Applications Transferred From Last Round: 0
Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $78,800
Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $27,921.10
Value of Treasury: $63,128.59
Total Amount Reserved: $65,364.34
USD values calculated at the time GMC began deliberating on applications.
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Applicant | Title | Decision | Amount (USD) | Avg Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA412601 | machinamachinery | GMC Receipt Reconciler — tested batch accounting and maintainer handoff | Decline | $250 | 1.29 |
| GA412602 | ILE Labs | Megapool Cross-Layer Checker | Decline | $6,500 | 1.17 |
| GA412603 | AlphaYields (Filipe Leonor) | AlphaYields — rETH as the base asset of ayETH | Decline | $30,000 | 1.14 |
| GA412604 | Asymmetric Defi | Rocket Pool Monthly Financial Reporting & Analysis | Decline | $1,500 | 1.29 |
| GA412605 | InstaSwap | InstaSwap: cross-chain rETH access — widget and partner API | Decline | $ 5,000 | 1 |
| GA412606 | Predge (Amir) | pDAO Proposal Evidence Ledger | Decline | $3,200 | 1.71 |
| GA412607 | Franklin Wilster | Rocket Pool TypeScript SDK & Integration Conformance Kit | Decline | $8,000 | 1 |
| GA412608 | Four Pillars (Steve Kim) | Rocket Pool rETH and Megapools: An English/Korean Research Report | Decline | $10,000 | 1 |
| GA412609 | DAOplomats | Saturn 2 Exit and Bond Impact Model | Decline | $3,600 | 1.33 |
| RA412601 | Ashwin Goyal | Saturn 2 numbers from the live validator set (RPIP-71 exit selection, RPIP-83 bond maths) | Decline | $750 | 1 |
Detailed Award Results
Name: GMC Receipt Reconciler — tested batch accounting and maintainer handoff
Proposer: machinamachinery
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #2 by machinamachinery
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $250
Score: 1.29
Comments: Reviewers were unanimous that the tool does not address a current need for the GMC. While the code appears to work as described, it only automates a small part of the reconciliation process. Someone would still need to determine which payments were approved, prepare and verify the allocation file, and source trustworthy transfer data, after which the remaining arithmetic is easy to check directly in the Safe interface or a spreadsheet. Members also noted that there is no named GMC maintainer and little evidence the tool would be used on an ongoing basis, and some raised concerns about the application appearing to be AI-generated. Given the limited need and low expected use, the GMC declined the application, even at the modest requested amount.
Name: Megapool Cross-Layer Checker
Proposer: ILE Labs
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #3 by ilelabs
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $6,500
Score: 1.17
Comments: Reviewers did not see an identified need for this tool. Smartnode already displays Megapool and Beacon Chain state together, and RocketDash publicly shows the same information for entire Megapools. The main additions, saved RPC evidence and offline replay, were not seen as worth the requested cost. Members also raised technical concerns: the live CLI checks only one validator at a time, and its “healthy” result does not require the validator pubkeys to match. Several reviewers found the proposal confusing and felt it did not clearly explain the problem it solves. Given the existing tooling, unclear value and cost, the GMC declined the application.
Name: AlphaYields — rETH as the base asset of ayETH
Proposer: AlphaYields (Filipe Leonor)
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #4 by filipe.leonor
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $30,000
Score: 1.14
Comments: Reviewers were not convinced the proposal would provide meaningful value to Rocket Pool. The request was viewed primarily as a business development incentive rather than funding to build something the protocol needs. Members noted that ayETH would hold rETH while shorting ETH, making it effectively a dollar-denominated strategy despite the ETH-denominated framing, and that RockSolid already gives users an easy way into a managed rETH vault, an effort the GMC would rather continue to support. Reviewers also pointed to the lack of a target for additional rETH held, no audit report and no detailed budget, and some had concerns about the application appearing to be AI-written. While at least one member suggested the team may be worth connecting with Rocket Pool’s business development contacts, the GMC declined the grant request.
Name: Rocket Pool Monthly Financial Reporting & Analysis
Proposer: Asymmetric Defi
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #5 by adalhi
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $1,500
Score: 1.29
Comments: Reviewers agreed that the proposed monthly reports would largely duplicate information that is already available. The data would be drawn from DeFiLlama and Dune, and the GMC and pDAO already publish monthly treasury reports. The application also did not include a sample report, defined metrics, a methodology or a payment address. While members appreciated that the application appeared to be a genuine effort rather than AI-generated, $500 per month was not seen as reasonable for repackaging existing data in another location. Given the lack of an identified need, the GMC declined the application.
Name: InstaSwap: cross-chain rETH access — widget and partner API
Proposer: InstaSwap
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #6 by Instaswap
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $15,000
Score: 1
Comments: Reviewers were unanimous that the GMC should not fund this proposal. rETH is already live in InstaSwap, and members questioned what the grant would actually pay for. The one new feature was seen as either adding costs for users or not working as described, the adoption targets were not tied to payment, and the payment address appeared to be a test wallet. Reviewers also noted that the claim that no one else could provide this service was contradicted by the applicant’s own test swaps. Several members also felt it was not appropriate for the GMC to fund feature expansion of a product that already earns fees from its users, and that the treasury is not in a position to compete with other protocols on incentives of this kind. The GMC declined the application.
Name: pDAO Proposal Evidence Ledger
Proposer: Predge (Amir)
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #7 by PREDGE
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $3,200
Score: 1.71
Comments: Reviewers saw some merit in the idea and agreed that verifiable governance tooling supports decentralization, but did not see a current need for it. There have been ten on-chain pDAO proposals to date and none has ever been challenged, so the proposed challenge/response timeline would be empty in practice. Recomputing the proposal roots is a one-off check that Smartnode already performs for anyone who enables it, and signing the results with a third-party key adds nothing the chain does not already prove. Members noted that protocol decisions almost always reach community consensus, so this is not something the GMC should prioritize at this time. Given the limited demonstrated need, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Rocket Pool TypeScript SDK & Integration Conformance Kit
Proposer: Franklin Wilster
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #8 by franklinwilster
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $8,000
Score: 1
Comments: Reviewers did not see a need for a dedicated TypeScript SDK. Integrating rETH takes only a handful of contract calls, which integrators already handle with existing libraries such as viem or ethers, and members felt the core team would build this if it were needed. The proposal was also seen as niche and expensive relative to its benefit. Reviewers were concerned that nothing has been built yet and that the scope was left open-ended, making it unclear what the funding would cover. Members also noted that the applicant’s recent activity suggests a pattern of pursuing bounties across many projects rather than a demonstrated connection to Rocket Pool, and that the payment address has never been used. The GMC declined the application.
Name: Rocket Pool rETH and Megapools: An English/Korean Research Report
Proposer: Four Pillars (Steve Kim)
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #9 by steve
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $10,000
Score: 1
Comments: Reviewers were unanimous that the report is not needed and that the request is significantly overpriced. The proposed 15–20 page report and Korean translation would largely explain material already covered in the Rocket Pool documentation, and with translation tools readily available, members did not see the translation as adding meaningful value. Reviewers also noted that the same proposal template appears to have been submitted to a number of other protocols. Members additionally pointed out that Saturn 2 is still evolving, so the report would quickly become outdated with no plan to keep it current, and that the application appeared to be at least partly AI-generated. Given the cost and lack of need, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Saturn 2 Exit and Bond Impact Model
Proposer: DAOplomats
Type: Grant
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #10 by winverseDP
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $3,600
Score: 1.33
Comments: Reviewers did not see a clear need for this research. The most important finding, that commission-first exit ordering roughly doubles node operator losses in order to save rETH holders about 3 basis points, has already been published at no cost. Members felt the rest of the proposal tried to fit four separate research projects into 100 hours, and that the “reproducible” baseline has no published code or data to verify its correctness. Some reviewers felt the intent behind the proposal was good and suggested that a narrower scope at a much lower price, or breaking the work into smaller pieces, could be considered in the future. Concerns were also raised about the application appearing to be AI-generated. Given the price relative to the deliverables, the GMC declined the application.
Name: Saturn 2 numbers from the live validator set (RPIP-71 exit selection, RPIP-83 bond maths)
Proposer: Ashwin Goyal
Type: Retrospective
Link to Application: Round 41 - GMC Call for Retrospective Applications - Deadline is October 7 - #2 by Ashwin
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $750
Score: 1
Comments: Reviewers did not see enough value in this retrospective submission to justify funding. While the figures appear accurate, most of them are already available in RPIP-83 or in previously published analysis, and the notable findings were already widely known within the community. Members felt the work was not something the community had asked for and could be reproduced much more cheaply internally. Reviewers also noted that the submission appeared to be largely AI-written. Some members acknowledged that the applicant seems to have a genuine interest in Rocket Pool and did not want to discourage future contributions, but the GMC declined the retrospective application.
Member Participation
Seven 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.