Posting on new bounties/grants/retros since my last post.
[bounty] Non-custodial Staking as a service
I wrote this. I would love feedback from others on the milestones (the first is meant to be quite easy… it’s a bit gamable however – could ask for it to be 10 different known discord members maybe; the second is meant to be like “you’ve made it woo”) and the money (easy to argue higher or lower tbh).
[bounty] Treegen Testing Support
This feels essential at this point 
[renew grant] RP Community Call Hosting on Twitter Spaces
9 RPL/fortnight is just not a lot if it’s bringing any community value, which I’m led to believe it does (despite almost never personally going).
[grant] Rocketpool Mechanistic Modeling Research: Universal Variable Commission
My take is a little nuanced here. I want the GMC to grant something, or work with sckuzzle on something to research. Supporting research is important and trying to tie the research into action (or from the opposite PoV, trying to derive action from research) is valuable.
My main concern is that the map is not the territory. I have real worries that reality will not play nice like a model. On the IMC, we’ve seen periods of irrational behavior where options we’d consider “safer” got more yield (seemed to attract fewer market participants) for months. This is fine insofar as we’re still roughly right – things move when expected, they move in roughly the direction expected, etc. I’m not even confident of that much though.
That said, as I’ve brought up in other discussions, we have to assume something, and roughly rational is the best we’ve got. So my main question then ends up being not “should we do this”, but rather “should we keep it somewhat shallower”? If I’m right that modeling is only a very rough model for reality, then there’s no point refining it much. In other words, are we better off gunning for 2 quick iterations in a month and $16k rather than refinement at $30k? This need not mean less research funding total – we can move to a new topic.
Miscellaneous work by Patches during Round 8
Little things that add up and a kind-to-the-dao rate.
Treegen work by Patches during Round 8
This is too low. BA052301 pays $1500 per spec for testing support. Patches did that, plus spec writing, plus working with joenax to get things merged. It’s true he had a lot of this figured out ahead from spec research which made the number of hours low, but I don’t think “was very knowledgeable” should be held against him. I would be disappointed to see less than $1500, and could argue a little higher.
Miscellaneous work by Patches during Round 8
Again, a kind-to-the-dao rate. The timeliness here was really important. The first foray into adding unit tests is noteworthy. I’d pay a little extra to acknowledge. $500?