Hi GMC and Rocket Pool community,
I submitted a single Round 42 Korean rETH Safety & Onboarding Pack application (post #8). It is not funded or approved; one real operator is doing the work with AI assistance, and I do not claim any Korean user demand yet.
Before building a 25-question FAQ and 18-case safety matrix, I would value feedback from people who actually explain Rocket Pool/rETH to Korean-speaking newcomers:
- Which one decision needs the clearest evidence: verifying the official staking/swap route and correct chain/asset, assessing rETH exit liquidity/slippage, recognizing fake approvals/tokens, or knowing when to stop and ask for human/tax advice?
- Would a short Korean risk-first checklist with dated official references be useful in real support/onboarding, or does existing material already cover this adequately?
- Is there a common public, non-personal misunderstanding that the proposed checklist should test? No wallet addresses, positions, transaction history, keys or personal information please.
I will document any independent response as feedback, not as an endorsement, customer, conversion or grant approval. A specific “not useful” is equally helpful. No referral links, purchase request or request for a higher award.
Thanks for reviewing the scope here rather than cluttering the grant application thread.
Public preview, 21 October (in-place update): I have now shipped a free, Korean four-question risk-first checklist so you can judge an actual artifact instead of only a proposal. It links four first-party Rocket Pool documents, contrasts protocol vs CoW routes, chain/token identity, wallet approvals and exit liquidity, and has no wallet connection or user data collection. This is not the complete 25-FAQ/18-case proposed deliverable, not a GMC award, and not proof of paying customers. Corrections and “already adequately covered” comments are welcome.