Hey Rocket Poolers! The GMC has concluded discussions and scoring for the Round 7 (Nov 12 - Dec 10) Grants/Bounties/RA Award Round. This marks the second 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. 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 Jan 12, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.
Subcommittees
This is the breakdown of subcommittees for this round:
Development: jcrtp, dondo, rocknet
Research: Ken, Looking For Owls, epineph
Marketing: 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 ($32/RPL) as of shortly before this posting (and then rounded up to the nearest RPL).
Modifications from Last Round
Drafted Bounties
Beginning with this round, the GMC has determined that during the award discussion, all bounties will undergo a drafting process on the bounty board. This approach enables the GMC to incorporate additional details and enhance the overall clarity of the bounty.
Link to draft for BA072301 (Rapid Research Incubator)
rp-bounty/bounties/BA072301.md at main · shfryn/rp-bounty · GitHub
–
Award Presentation
The ‘Award Commentary’ section has been replaced by the ‘Detailed Award Results’ section to improve user experience for readers.
–
Public Retrospectives
The GMC plans on making the round 7 retrospective public to the community. Check the dedicated GMC server or DM ShfRyn for more details.
Application Breakdown
- Total Grant Applications: 1
- Total Bounty Applications: 2
- Total Retro Applications: 11
- Total Amount Grants Requested: $7,000
- Total Amount Bounties Requested: $15,000
- Total Amount Retros Requested: $7,800
- Total Amount Grants / Bounties / Retros Requested: $29,000
- Total Amount Incoming Funds This Period: $90,000
- Total Amount Reserves: $1,660,000
Awards, Average Overall Scores
| Number | Proposer | Title | Decision | Amount (RPL - RPL at $32/RPL) | Amount (USD) | Average score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA072301 | epineph | Rapid Research Incubator | Approve | 312.50 | $10,000 | 5 |
| RA072306 | KentPhilly | RPL DeFi | Approve | 37.50 | $1,200 | 3.67 |
| RA072301 | Patches | RocketWatch TVL / Collateral | Approve | 18.75 | $600 | 4.5 |
| RA072303 | Patches | RPIP-30 Review Trees | Approve | 31.25 | $1,000 | 5 |
| RA072304 | Patches | Treegen Spec Proposal | Approve | 37.50 | $1,200 | 5 |
| RA072306 | Patches | Smartnode Rescue Node Addon | Approve | 6.25 | $200 | 4.5 |
| RA072308 | Patches | Smartnode Maintenance Disk Full | Approve | 3.13 | $100 | 3.5 |
| RA072310 | Patches | IPFS Cid Calculator | Approve | 7.81 | $250 | 4 |
| RA072305 | GovAlpha | RPIP-36 Membership Record | Approve | LUSD Chosen | $800 | 4 |
| RA072307 | Valdorff | Governance Facilitation | Approve | 62.50 | $2,000 | 5 |
| GA072301 | Patches | RP Book | Approve | 31.25 | $1,000 | 3.33 |
| BA062301 | Dr Doofus | Merchandise Store | Decline | 5 | ||
| GA072301 | Exponent | RocketPool Chat | Decline | 1 |
Detailed Award Results
Name: Rapid Research Incubator
Proposer: epineph
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: All
Link to Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Bounty Applications - Deadline is December 10 - #2 by epineph
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $10,000
Awarded Funding: $10,000
Score: 5
Comments: While typically, the GMC would await details such as the awarding committee, the importance of immediate action overrides bureaucratic delays. This initiative is a clear priority, and the GMC endorses its prompt execution, willing to contribute personally if necessary. The GMC suggests a reassessment if outcomes fall short. Critical to success is establishing agreed-upon next steps to maintain momentum post-idea generation. The urgency of this essential work cannot be overstated, and the GMC strongly supports expediting the funding process to initiate impactful changes swiftly.
Acceptance Criteria: Every serious submission will be considered. Between 13 and 17 submissions will be rewarded with $250-2500. Highly prized qualities will be: specific actionable recommendations, high impact, innovation/uniqueness of ideas, persuasive discussion, evaluation of drawbacks/steel-man arguments, and feasibility from both technical and political (pDAO) standpoints.
Payment Structure: Specific submissions/mechanisms that are felt to be the most useful/innovative/promising for eventual adoption will receive Gold/Silver/Bronze x3 prizes ($2500, $1500, $1000 (x 3) reward levels). Additionally, 250$ will be paid to up to 12 individuals who submitted work but did not receive the above awards.
Link to Bounty: rp-bounty/bounties/BA072301.md at main · shfryn/rp-bounty · GitHub
–
Name: RPL DeFi
Recipient: KentPhilly
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: All
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #9 by FeelingoodFeelingrt
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $1,200
Awarded Funding: $1,200
Score: 3.67
Comments: The proposed contribution amount is justified despite the need for increased engagement. Notably, the value of the website is acknowledged, especially within the niche audience of the DeFi sector. Acknowledging the value of the work done thus far, there is a consensus to pay for current efforts while expressing a need for future reevaluation, particularly if engagement remains limited, ensuring continued investment aligns with the project’s goals.
–
Name: RocketWatch / TVL Collateral
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #2 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $600
Awarded Funding: $600
Score: 4.5
Comments: This modest award for a day’s effort by Patches that provided a clear solution to a commonly asked question.
–
Name: RPIP-30 Review Trees
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #4 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $1,000
Awarded Funding: $1,000
Score: 5
Comments: Valuable work showcasing the implications of RPIP-30 and steering it effectively. Patches completed this in two days, making it a cost-effective project compared to RA072301 on a per-day basis.
–
Name: Treegen Spec Proposal
Recipient: Patches, knoshua, Valdorff, ramana
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #6 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $600
Awarded Funding: $1,200
Score: 5
Comments: Patches’ specifications play a crucial role in shaping Fornax’s implementation of reward tree specs from v8 onward. The contribution is highly beneficial from a development standpoint, significantly easing Joe and Fornax’s workload. Given the substantial value relative to the modest request, the GMC will be awarding at 200%.
Payment Structure: Patches - $600 / knoshua - $200 / Valdorff - $200 / ramana - $200
–
Name: Smartnode Rescue Node Addon
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #11 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $200
Awarded Funding: $200
Score: 4.5
Comments: While a niche feature, the proposal holds value in calming node operators during potential system failures, mitigating harmful panic. The feature, though not universally impactful, holds significant value for those who require it, enhancing overall user experience.
–
Name: Smartnode Maintenance Disk Full
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #12 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $100
Awarded Funding: $100
Score: 3.5
Comments: This feature appears beneficial for both #support and the NO quality of life, aligning with the platform’s improvement goals that the pDAO should fund. Despite its small scale, the positive impact it could have on a significant portion of the support community justifies its consideration for funding.
–
Name: IPFS Cid Calculator
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Development
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #13 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $250
Awarded Funding: $250
Score: 4
Comments: This collaborative effort involving Patches, Fornax, and Joe has successfully streamlined tasks, with Patches notably lightening workload for Joe and Fornax. Recognizing the value of this contribution, the GMC believes it is deserving of an award.
–
Name: RPIP-36 Membership Record
Recipient: GovAlpha
Type: Retrospective Award
Subcommittee: Research
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #8 by LongForWisdom
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $800
Awarded Funding: $800
Score: 4
Comments: The completion of this task is crucial, especially with the DAO’s increasing complexity, and the anticipated ongoing maintenance, volunteered by the contributor, enhances its overall value. Also, given its usefulness as a piece of DAO infrastructure, the GMC has chosen to award this.
–
Name: Governance Facilitation
Recipient: Valdorff
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Research
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #10 by Valdorff
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $1,500 - $2,000
Awarded Funding: $2,000
Score: 5
Comments: Valdorff’s continuous efforts are commendable, contributing significantly to Rocket Pool. The work undertaken is highly valuable, and finding someone else capable of consistent delivery may prove challenging. 2000 appears reasonable given the comprehensive nature of the work.
–
Name: RP Book
Recipient: Patches
Type: Retrospective
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Retrospective Awards - Deadline Is December 10 - #3 by Patches
Decision: Approve
Requested Funding: $1,000
Awarded Funding: $1,000
Score: 3.33
Comments: The success of this community platform is intricately tied to community engagement. The open-source nature allows continuous content updates, contributing to its overall quality. The GMC believes payment is warranted to encourage ongoing efforts and utilization of the platform within the community. The platform’s value and potential can be maximized through proactive promotion, and would also like to see the applicant promote the platform as much as possible.
–
Name: Merchandise Store
Recipient: Dr Doofus
Type: Bounty
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link To Application: Round 6 - GMC Call for Bounty Applications - Deadline is November 11 - #2 by drdoofus
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $500 - $5,000
Score: 5
Comments: The GMC is VERY MUCH interested in a merchandise store and has been in discussion with Dr Doofus for the past couple months. Dr Doofus has been a bit too busy to figure out the finer details of this bounty before it will be ready for acceptance. The GMC has discussed with him that they will be declining and the project is waiting for him when he is ready to pick it up again. The GMC has a public thread within their server if anyone else from the community would like to join the discussion or assist on this project.
–
Name: RocketPool Chat
Recipient: Exponent
Type: Grant
Subcommittee: Marketing
Link To Application: Round 7 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is December 10 - #2 by m0xt
Decision: Decline
Requested Funding: $7,000
Score: 1
Comments: While the concept is valid, it has been rejected previously, and the GMC questions the value of introducing another chat tool. The GMC shares the concern about the potential drawbacks of a chatbot and its limitations, as highlighted by Valdorff and others. Given the feedback on the forum and the GMC’s assessment of utility, they find the proposed budget excessive for something that appears not widely useful.
Member Participation
All GMC members participated in both the discussion calls and the voting process.
Final Voting Stages
There were no amendments proposed during the final voting stages and there were no rejection votes declared.