Round 6 (Oct 8 - Nov 11 2023) Grants/Bounties/Retrospective Awards Round Results

Hey Rocket Poolers! The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 6 (Oct 8 - Nov 11) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round. This marks the first award cycle with the year 2 roster of GMC 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 Dec 11 at 23:59 UTC.


This is the breakdown of subcommittees for this round:

jcrtp, dondo, rocknet

Ken, Looking For Owls, epineph

Waq, rplmaxi.eth, KentPhilly

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 ($26/RPL) as of shortly before this posting (and then rounded up to the nearest RPL).

Application Breakdown
  • Total Grant Applications: 7
  • Total Bounty Applications: 4
  • Total Retro Applications: 4
  • Total Applications: 15
  • Total Amount Grants Requested: $257,720
  • Total Amount Bounties Requested: $225,000
  • Total Amount Retros Requested: $16,500
  • Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $499,220
  • Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $82,000
  • Total Amount Reserves: $1,500,000
Awards, Average Overall Scores

This round the GMC awarded $63,501 in awards.

Number Committee Proposer Title Decision Amount (RPL - RPL at $26/RPL) Amount (USD) Pay structure Acceptance Criteria Average score
GA062301 Dev ramana RocketPerf Approve 230.77 $6,000 $500 (19.23 RPL) for mockup, $4,500 (173.08 RPL) for launched product + $1,000 (38.46 RPL)after a year of maintenance There is a website that nicely displays attestation (and other beacon chain duty) performance data for all Rocket Pool nodes from the beginning of time till a recent (e.g. late 2023) epoch. 12.00
RA062301 Dev hildobby rETH Staking Dashboard Approve 115.39 $3,000 11.50
BA062302 Research ShfRyn RPIP Review Approve 192.31 $5,000 $5,000 (max $500 per RPIP) The RPIP must be in the ‘Final’ state, and bugs must have been identified prior to reaching that state to qualify for the bounty. 14.00
GA062302 Marketing Bankless rETH Quest Approve 692.31 $18,000 $18,000 upon completion Deployment of the lesson on their platform. 13.50
BA062304 Marketing Valdorff RP Scorecard Approve 576.92 $15,000 Milestone 1: $5,000 (192.31 RPL) -$10,000 (384.62 RPL) based on quality. Milestone 2: $3,000 (115.39 RPL) pot to be split amongst reviewers. Milestone 3: $2,000 (76.92 RPL) GMC approval of each milestone. 13.00
RA062303 Marketing Valdorff Worm’s Dune Work Approve 211.54 $5,500 15.00
RA062304 Marketing Valdorff Val’s Dune Work Approve 115.39 $3,000 15.00
RA062302 Research GovAlpha RPIP Portal Review Ranked Choice Vote LUSD Requested $8,001 $5,000 paid upfront. $3,001 paid upon 1 year of updates 12.50
BA062301 Marketing drdoofus Merchandise Store Defer w/ Future Consideration 13.50
GA042306 Dev IPOR rETH Stake Rate Index Decline 7.20
GA062303 Dev SphereX Transaction Security Decline 7.00
GA062304 Research Nethermind Tokenomics Simulator Decline 8.50
GA062306 Research davidllerma Security Monitoring Decline 7.00
BA062303 Research epineph Kill The Premium Decline 9.00
Award Commentary

Rocket Perf
The GMC has approved this grant under the stipulations that a mockup will be added as the first milestone for the project. In the future they would like to see more detailed features and specifications on applications. But given this applications lower pricetag and history to perform high quality work, the GMC is approving this.

rETH Staking Dashboard
The GMC has approved the application for funding, expressing enthusiasm for rewarding positive contributions to Rocket Pool (RP). While some members questioned the direct impact on RP, others noted the dashboard’s utility for monitoring the staking landscape and its value to the community. The funding was ultimately seen as a modest investment in public goods, benefiting both the Rocket Pool community and the project itself.

RPIP Review
The proposal is considered to have a low cost and a potentially substantial upside, making it a favorable investment. The GMC would like to make clear that this is only for finding bugs or errors in the RPIP and does not include general contributions. Also, the RPIP must be in the ‘Final’ state, and bugs must have been identified prior to reaching that state to qualify for the bounty. The recipient is eligible if they identify the problem, they do not need to personally do the pull request or submit the solution.

rETH Quest
The GMC has accepted the negotiated deal of $18,000 with Bankless, resulting in what we estimate to be a cost of approximately $1.63 per person reached within the Bankless Academy. Despite Rocket Pool representing only a fraction of the lesson, the proposal underscores the opportunity to establish itself as the primary name for ethereum staking from the beginning of the curriculum. There is the potential for increased visibility during a future bull run when new users are expected to go through the academy curriculum. Given the perceived sustainability compared to previous advertising costs, the GMC has accepted funding at $18,000.

RP Scorecard
The GMC has accepted the proposed bounty amount, expressing appreciation for the utility provided by the project and acknowledging the extensive research involved. The positive sentiment is based on the recognition of the project’s value and the importance of having such information readily available.

Worm’s Dune Work
The GMC supports funding for Dr. Worm’s Dune Dashboard, aligning with Valdorff’s assessment of its substantial value to the community. The positive sentiment is rooted in the acknowledgment of fantastic work presented in screenshots from the community. Overall, there is consensus in favor of funding, recognizing the project’s contribution and impact.

Val’s Dune Work
Since the GMC feels this dashboard is used almost as much as Dr. Worm’s, they have chosen to fund this application in full for the value it adds to the protocol.

RPIP Portal Review
Supporting a custom amount of $8,001, the GMC acknowledges the tremendous value brought to the DAO by GovAlpha’s new portal, emphasizing its user-friendly design and positive impact on community and governance. Despite reservations about funding future contributions in a retro payment, the GMC recognizes GovAlpha’s substantial contributions beyond the specific project outlined in this retrospective application. The support aims to both reward the high level of effort from GovAlpha and signal a desire to fund similar impactful initiatives in the future. They are awarding $5,000 up front, and the remaining $3,001 after a year of maintenance and updates. The GMC requests that future applications focus on the specific work outlined to facilitate more efficient evaluation.

Merchandise Store
The GMC had shown strong interest in supporting a merchandise store project for the protocol. The applicant has been given a list of questions from the GMC and they are compiling a new proposal and scope to respond to the GMC’s feedback.

rETH Stake Rate Index
After 3 rounds of discussions and asking multiple members of the community the GMC has decided to decline this application. The lack of support from the community, and the IMC in particular, and the comparatively low TVL (Total Value Locked) in relation to the price tag further diminish the project’s merit.

Transaction Security
The GMC has opted to decline SphereX’s proposal after thorough consideration, taking into account concerns raised by Langers and Kane. SphereX’s pitch involves direct modifications to all Rocket Pool contracts, posing two significant blockers: the potential centralization concern related to transaction reversals controlled by SphereX and the absence of coverage for their recurring subscription fee. Despite technical feasibility, the centralization issue is the primary reason for the decline of the proposal.

Tokenomics Simulator
The GMC has chosen to decline the proposal for a tokenomics simulation from the Nethermind team. Although the merit of the idea is acknowledged, and the associated cost is deemed reasonable, the recent major tokenomic change by the DAO necessitates a period of observation to assess its impact. Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the simulator, especially considering the swift pace of developments in the LST ecosystem and the potential strain on community resources from multiple circulating tokenomics proposals. The GMC expresses skepticism regarding the value and viability of a simulation in providing meaningful insights to the protocol or community, suggesting it could potentially become a hindrance to future decision-making. It’s important to note that the GMC is more inclined to reconsider this proposal in several months, allowing time for some of the current initiatives (including RPIP-30) to unfold and provide a clearer contex.

Security Monitoring
The GMC has decided to decline the proposal based on a perceived lack of community interest in the suggested solutions and a belief in the sufficiency of existing security options for Node Operators (NOs). The proposal has been criticized for its lack of specificity, and concerns have been raised regarding the functionality of the provided example dashboards. The GMC asserts that the proposal fails to address a current issue, emphasizing that the existing dashboards adequately serve the needs of most NOs, rendering the proposed improvements unnecessary.

Kill The Premium
The GMC, after careful consideration, has chosen to decline the proposal, expressing the view that the indirect value shift from RPL to Node Operators (NOs) is considered less efficient compared to directly altering the fee relationship between rETH and NOs. Concerns are raised about the proposal’s potential for heavy sybil raiding despite guardrails, and the perceived risk is considered not worth the current situation. The GMC suggests that more research is needed before resubmission, acknowledging the positive initiative of removing the premium but recommending a focus on protocol/NO growth through lower bonds as a potentially more efficient approach.

Member Participation

Ken and KentPhilly attended both discussion calls but did not submit decisions this round. However, they were active in negotiations and did participate in the three-stage final award discussion and voting.

Final Voting Stages

During the first stage of the final award process, an amendment was proposed to revise the funding of RA062302 (RPIP Portal Review) from $6,650 to $8,001. That amendment passed with 7 votes in favor and 2 rejections. During the final stage of voting, no members elected to reject the entire slate of awards.


Good stuff @GMC! Excited to see the funding for hildobby and the high level of funding for GovAlpha!


Really appreciate the vote of confidence on the RPIP Portal Review work!

I would like to clarify a couple of points:

I’m happy to maintain and make requested updates to the portal, the work is fairly satisfying, and I’d love to make it work better for everyone. I’d planned to respond to reasonable requests of this nature already. With that said, is the desire for us to take a proactive role in this? Are there specific updates the GMC would like to see to the portal?

On a general note, I’ve already made some changes since the retro application. Notably to improve LaTeX handling, and to unify the treatment of tables between github and the portal.

This bums me out a little because I’d written the application with the intent of making it as easy as possible for you all to evaluate. Seems I didn’t hit the mark there. My goal was to provide as much information as possible including:

  • Summary and evidence of work
  • Likely responses from us
  • Summary of arguments for/against smaller or larger payments
  • The offer to host the pre-changes version of the portal so the committee could compare side-by-side. (Apologies I couldn’t set this up permanently.)

On the subject of the specific work outlined, I provided a link to this [forum post] in the application, which summarizes the changes to the portal. Did you just need more detail here?

I’m happy to accommodate whatever format / changes you prefer, but I’d appreciate if you can be more specific about what makes the evaluations easier for you all (because it seems my assumptions were quite off!)


I’m happy to maintain and make requested updates to the portal, the work is fairly satisfying, and I’d love to make it work better for everyone. I’d planned to respond to reasonable requests of this nature already. With that said, is the desire for us to take a proactive role in this? Are there specific updates the GMC would like to see to the portal?

I don’t believe the GMC has any suggestions at this time and is just overall pleased with the direction it has been taken thus far. Please message us in the GMC server or DM me at any time if you would like to request more feedback or direction.

I’m happy to accommodate whatever format / changes you prefer, but I’d appreciate if you can be more specific about what makes the evaluations easier for you all (because it seems my assumptions were quite off!)

I believe I missed the mark with my wording there. Overall we felt you described and detailed the application well. What I intended to convey is that given we are encouraging more work, the GMC would prefer to discourage applications attempting to bundle multiple items of work for rewards. Instead, we encourage the submission of individual applications for each distinct item of work, as you did in this cycle. I.E. you did it right, and we’d like to see it presented the same way in the future.


Ah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I’d misunderstood you.

Yep, we’re planning to continue with that approach.


Yes, everyone felt like GovAlpha’s contribution to the community more than justifies the amount asked and eventually awarded. I was part of the minority that voted to keep the reward at 100% of asked (5k), because I felt like that was enough for the specific work in the grant, with a premium for your risk (of being paid nothing) and the portal redesign being pretty badass. The majority felt that it was important to send an even stronger symbolic message that your efforts are greatly appreciated and we would like to see more in the future.

My primary critique was that if we have a retroactive award that ALSO anticipates potential future works and also rewards for past activities not specified in the award (other governance activities), it muddies the water when subsequent grants or RAs are applied for (eg, do we subtract that additional inducement from future awards or keep paying it forward? What if you now apply for other governance RAs that we felt were somewhat rolled into this award?).

I don’t personally mind bundling multiple projects in one application, I just like what we reimburse to be specifically laid out (and from there we should add a retroactive premium). Also worth noting we have a lot of new members (like myself), and they are (I am) still feeling out the system; so much of this discussion was not so much about your particular application as how we should approach rewarding activities- we just know you know that governance is messy.

Regarding ongoing maintenance: the usefulness of a source of truth degrades rapidly as certitude decreases; I think the amount of maintenance is going to be relatively minor (updating with new committee members, new RPIPs, edits, responding to reasonable community requests, etc), but there is huge value in having one entity responsible for updates/correcting errors rather than “anyone can update it”, so that we can reasonably use and refer others to this portal as a source of truth and not need to always be cross-referencing.


Thanks @epineph, useful to hear your perspective as well.

On this stuff, I like to think we’d always be understanding of lower amounts or straight denials for these reasons. Despite the whole ‘we’ll be unhappy below this threshold’ statements, we’re not going to kick-off over individual cases, especially if there’s a good reason like it being covered under another retro.

It’s definitely most important that there be a clear understanding of what a given retro covers. I think one other huge benefit of splitting out projects is that it allows the GMC to signal clearly what sort of work they value most at a given time. I think its totally reasonable to tweak award amounts above or below the ask to nudge people in a certain direction, and this is less possible with bundled work.

I agree completely.

So, this betrays a misunderstanding which may lead to a future issue. This retro was intended to cover only technical updates to the portal rather than content updates. So, the changes to layout, sorting, bugfixes, etc.

Content updates (ie, updating RPIPs, adding missing information, correction of errors) was not intended to be covered by this. We have also done a reasonable amount of work on the content, but had planned to cover that under a future retro because its a different class of work.

Maintenance for RPIP content should probably be covered by RPIP editors, with that said, I’ve been covering some content maintenance as well (mostly just because I don’t like things being out of date or wrong, and I don’t have too many other demands on my time.) I’ll continue to do that, but my assumption was that the future $3001 here was for technical maintenance + improvement.

Stuff like adding RPIPs is more or less automatic, when RPIPs are merged to the github repo (by the RPIP editors), the portal updates with the changes, so I wouldn’t expect that to lead to compensation on the portal side (though RPIP editors should get something for this work, as there is a review component.)

To talk a little bit about the maintenance extension thing, I do feel that’s maybe not having the effect you all wanted it to in this case. I’d already planned to maintain and improve on requests, and would more or less just write off that time, unless it became a significant effort.

I’m finding that the $3001 is causing me to stress about it a lot more (am I maintaining it enough? should I ask for improvements? do I find improvements? it’s supposed to cover content rather than technical maintenance?! What is my purpose in life?!). So realistically, I’m just going to try to forget about it entirely, do the maintenance I would have done anyway, and if we get some tokens in a year, it will be a nice surprise.

1 Like

Honestly I wouldn’t stress too much about the 3001. It’s a ’thank you’ and a vote of confidence in your future works. From my standpoint, not ghosting the community and responding to community requests with either “I’ll fix that” or “let me get you in contact with the right person” should be sufficient; if the GMC wants something specific we can have that conversation, but it won’t be a surprise at the end of the year. We realize you were going to do much of this anyway; if you feel you’ve done more than is covered by the 3001 regarding the portal you are welcome to apply for an RA again.


Bit late now, but can I ask what happened to the [Rocket Pool Sabbatical grant]?

I left a comment in the discussion about it because I thought it was interesting, even if I didn’t feel it made sense as a grant. I’m not seeing it anywhere in this post. Was it withdrawn?

Bit late now, but can I ask what happened to the [Rocket Pool Sabbatical grant]?

We discussed that it would probably make more sense as a bounty.

epineph chose to withdraw it, and he plans on revisiting it in a few months.

I’ll make a note to publish withdrawals in the future.

1 Like

Yep. So because of GMC guidelines, ‘grants’ should go to the author, and a GMC member writing a grant cannot participate in grants discussion/voting that round (I had assumed that the ‘recipient’ would be the one restricted). I didn’t feel it was appropriate to miss my first round, so I withdrew it before discussion. I should have communicated that!

As envisioned, this largely awards retroactive achievements; however, it doesn’t fit well into that application for sure…

And I didn’t think it functioned well as a ‘bounty,’ as the future work is hoped for, but the money is not contingent on hitting any specific achievements or goals- but it could probably be squeezed into that form.

Anyhow, i still like the idea as a ‘we have a hard time assigning comparative value, but we can at least ensure that our most valuable participants are recognized’.

I would prefer not to revisit it myself, but maybe to see another person’s take on it? But I’ll revisit if necessary in a few months :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like