Round 5 (Sep 10 - Oct 7 2023) Grants/Bounties/Retrospective Awards Round Results

Hello everyone! We have concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 5 (Sep 10 - Oct 7 2023) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round. This marks the second award cycle under RPIP-26 that uses the monthly format. It is also the second award cycle where subcommittees were utilized. It will be the last round for the current roster of committee members. I’m happy to announce the following award winners. For those who did not receive an award, please note that applicants are welcome to re-apply. Remember there is an Award Commentary section where you can learn more about the GMC’s decisions.

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 Nov 10 at 23:59 UTC.

New Process: Final Slate Voting

The GMC has voted on utilizing a three-stage voting system during the finalization of an awards cycle.

Stage 1 (24 hours): Declare Amendments
During this stage, GMC members will put forth any amendments they wish to propose regarding the final decisions. These amendments have the potential to alter the decision to any of the options outlined in the feedback sheet. For example, John might propose an amendment to revise RAXXXX funding to 100%, while Jane may revise GAXXXX funding to 66%. Jim, on the other hand, might suggest declining the BAXXXX application.

Stage 2 (48 hours): Amendment Discussion and Voting In this stage, the proposed amendments from Stage 1 will be compiled. Committee members are then invited to vote ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Abstain’ on each of the amendments brought forward during Stage 1. For an amendment to pass, it requires a majority vote—meaning more than half of all standing committee members must be in favor of it.

Stage 3 (24 hours): Vote To Reject Slate During this stage, committee members have a 24-hour window to collectively decide whether to accept or reject the entire slate of proposals. If a majority vote in favor of rejecting the slate is not attained, the slate will automatically be accepted. Following this decision, the 14-day objection window will commence, starting from the awards decision post made by the administrator.

New Process: Subcommittee Application Selection

The GMC has voted on adding a transparent subcommittee application assignment process.

1. Application Review and Subcommittee Assignment Discussion:
After the application deadline, the GMC administrator will conduct a private text discussion session. In this discussion, the administrator will present a breakdown of the applications and suggest suitable subcommittees for each.

2. Subcommittee Representatives:
Each subcommittee will have designated representatives responsible for selecting applications within their respective committees. The representatives will serve as primary points of contact and facilitate the application selection process. Non-representatives are also encouraged to participate in the discussion.

3. Application Selection Process:
Subcommittee representatives will have a 72-hour window to make their application selections. During this period, they are encouraged to engage in open discussions within their subcommittees and other subcommittees to resolve any conflicts or overlaps. If two or more subcommittees express interest in the same application, an open discussion is encouraged to form consensus. If no consensus is reached within the 72-hour timeframe, the decision will defer to the administrator.

4. Administrator’s Role:
At the end of the 72-hour period, if subcommittees fail to reach a consensus or have objections, the administrator will have the discretion to assign applications to subcommittees.


This is the breakdown of subcommittees for this round:

jcrtp, object Object, 0xFornax

anisoptera.eth, Ken, mentor

rplmaxi.eth, dondo, Waq

The GMC has acknowledged the necessity of finding improved methods for managing DeFi applications in the future. They plan to address this by establishing new subcommittees with the upcoming roster in November.

Proposal Scoring Process

Awards were denominated in USD for the purposes of committee discussions and voting on finalized award amounts. Awards were then converted to RPL at the current ratio ($23/RPL) as of shortly before this posting (and then rounded up to the nearest RPL).

Awards, Average Overall Scores
Number Committee Proposer Title Decision Amount (RPL - RPL at $23/RPL) Amount (USD) Pay structure Acceptance Criteria Average score
BA052302 Dev Valdorff Treegen Testing Support Approve 130.44 $3,000 $1,500 per spec (65.22 RPL each) The spec is live and the Rocket Pool development team members working on this (likely Joe) are asked who both created an independent implementation and actively supported testing 12.67
BA052302 Marketing Valdorff Improve LST Dashboard Approve 21.74 $500 GMC approval and a technical community member (from GMC or not) agreeing that it is acceptable. 14.67
RA052302 Research Long For Wisdom RPIP-4 Proofreading Approve 14.35 $330 10.00
GA052302 Dev Functionland FxBlox Defer w/ Future Consideration 8.67
GA042306 Marketing IPOR rETH Stake Rate Index Deferral to Entire Committee 7.33
GA052301 Dev Nigel docIT Decline 8.33
GA052303 Dev okContract Front-End Snippets Decline 8.33
RA052303 Dev Avado Minipool Creation Decline 7.67
GA052308 Research Andres Gomez Ramirez Security Monitoring Decline 6.00
GA052303 Marketing Inverter Network Yield Staking Decline 7.33
GA052305 Marketing Cryptoversidad Rocket Pool Library Decline 8.67
GA052306 Marketing Mercle Community Gamification Decline 6
GA052307 Marketing Sharpe Labs rETH Platform Decline 7.67
Award Commentary

Treegen Testing Support
The GMC has approved the bounty and funding for two specs. They are satisfied with the initial spec provided by ramana.

Improve LST Dasboard
Considering the minimal cost and the potential benefits for the IMC, the committee members have agreed this is a worthwhile investment.

RPIP-4 Proofreading
The GMC recognizes a35u’s contribution. The GMC administrator is working within the community and GMC to compose a bounty that covers future retrospective awards of a similar scope.

The GMC has decided to defer until Smartnode v2 is ready based on support implications, dependencies and financial timing. The GMC agrees with concerns from the community that simplifying Smartnode operation too much could lead to an influx of users needing assistance, overwhelming the current support channel, especially concerning technical issues like Linux and networking. The proposal is dependent on the Rocket Pool SDK, specifically the Smartnode v2 HTTP API, which is not yet completed. Attempting to work around this with the v1 Docker daemon-based setup would result in wasted effort and additional costs when the upgrade is eventually implemented. Given the current market conditions and price of RPL, the GMC finds it inappropriate to approve a large proposal like this. Instead, they suggest revisiting the proposal when Smartnode v2 is ready for integration and developing a payment strategy based on specific milestones at that time.

rETH Stake Rate Index
In the previous round, the Development Subcommittee engaged in discussions with the IMC regarding the merit of this application but was unable to reach a decision. The subcommittee sought input from the Marketing team in the current round. However, Marketing was also unable to reach a clear consensus. The GMC intends to gather additional opinions, especially from the new roster of committee members in the next round, before making a final determination on the application.

The majority of user support requirements, particularly technical issues related to node operation, Linux, network, and routing, fall outside the scope of existing documentation and the official forum. While the suggested bot could be helpful, it does not align with the organization’s current needs. Instead, the committee suggests incorporating content from the Discord support channel and its threads. However, any implementation would require oversight from individuals responsible for maintaining the RP support decision tree website and the help bot. The ideal solution would be a bot that the existing support staff could manage, learning from the extensive questions and answers available on the Discord platform.

Front-End Snippets
After discussions with the applicant, the GMC has decided to decline this, deciding it poses security risks that are not worth the investment.

Minipool Creation
The GMC has concerns about funding for-profit products and Rocket Pool’s limited support resources. The integration, which directly profits Avado, has added an extra burden to support volunteers without addressing persistent issues or benefiting the broader protocol. The lack of communication with Avado’s development team regarding ongoing problems, such as missing minipool staking transactions and withdrawal address confirmations, led to increased workload for the community. Considering these factors, the GMC deemed it inappropriate to award a retroactive grant for a project that primarily benefits the awardee while adding labor to the community without clear positive impact on the protocol.

Security Monitoring
The GMC members do not believe that the proposed research aligns sufficiently with Rocket Pool to warrant the substantial funding requested, especially given the unclear benefits and the complexity of the existing code, which appears challenging for NOs to use effectively.

Yield Staking
The GMC believes integration with yield-gaining staking tokens can be considered once operational and established, citing existing successful models like Eigenlayer’s airdrops. Given the widespread integration of rETH by major DeFi protocols, the additional plugin is deemed unjustified in driving equivalent value.

The GMC expresses skepticism about the potential impact, noting that the written application lacks tangible evidence of meaningful results. The absence of actual content and engaged viewers raises doubts about the effectiveness of a video-based approach. The GMC believes the community possesses other resources that could be utilized for similar purposes, leading to the denial of funding for this proposal.

The GMC members emphasize the need to evaluate the results of OpenUX’s node operator research before investing in such an expensive marketing initiative. The proposal’s low rate of return, with an investment of $60k to generate $500k, is viewed as unfavorable, suggesting that allocating the funds to DeFi incentives would yield a better result on the return on investment.

Sharpe Labs
The GMC believes that existing solutions like DeFi Saver, which are free and well-tested, are already in place and functioning effectively. The committee believes there is no added benefit in paying an additional $30,000 for a tool that replicates existing functionalities. The GMC is not against supporting new products, but it would require substantial evidence of superiority to warrant funding.

Final Vote

During the newly introduced three-stage final slate voting process described above, no members chose to reject the slate of awards.