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).
- 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.
|Amount (RPL - RPL at $26/RPL)
|$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.
|rETH Staking Dashboard
|$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.
|$18,000 upon completion
|Deployment of the lesson on their platform.
|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.
|Worm’s Dune Work
|Val’s Dune Work
|RPIP Portal Review
|Ranked Choice Vote
|$5,000 paid upfront. $3,001 paid upon 1 year of updates
|Defer w/ Future Consideration
|rETH Stake Rate Index
|Kill The Premium
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.