In order to keep the application threads clear of discussions (to make it easier for committee members to read and score them), please use this thread for any and all questions and discussions of round 9 period of grant, bounty, and retrospective award applications.
Regarding the SSV Integration bounty proposal: Having done some dabbling in this area, I feel like the real meat of what’s needed isn’t so much just incorporating the SSV software to sit along side the smartnode, it’s the actual integration at the minipool level, e.g., assigning minipool validators to SSV operators (and vice versa) seamlessly and getting that whole process to work with the smartnode’s other functions. Right now moving minipool validators to SSV operators is a manual, and frankly somewhat dangerous, process. Is this bounty intended to address any of those issues? If so, I feel like it could be clarified.
Hello, this is Matthias from the core team of ssv network. I want to express my gratitude for your response, and I am genuinely thrilled to see this project moving forward.
I noticed that the points you mentioned in your response are part of our phase 2 plan. The bounty has been designed to be divided into two phases. The first phase, as posted by Ben, focuses on specific objectives. The second phase will involve the implementation and facilitation of squad staking for minipool.
I would greatly appreciate some feedback from the community regarding their preference. Should we include all the objectives in a single, comprehensive bounty, or should we proceed with the planned division? Your input is valuable to us.
Hey Matthias, good to see you here.
I’m just one person, but my feedback is that I’d rather see a bounty that is perhaps larger but results in a truly integrated product. Otherwise, the risk is that the Phase 2 bounty never comes to be (either because it is not approved or because it is never accomplished) and the result is that the protocol has paid for something that doesn’t actually bring it much (or any) value.
Personally, I’m very interested in a Rocket Pool/SSV integration, so my comment is not meant to be negative in any way toward the overall project or goal. I just wonder if this foundational phase should really be an independent bounty.
This strikes me as high cost/effort when:
- a true UI is in the cards
rocketpool <subcommand> --helpetc already contain the data requested.
Additionally, the library used by smartnode to parse cli args is adding support for tab-completions.
Rocketscan Pilot didn’t get funded so here’s another chance.
To me this sounds like the bounty was written with someone already in mind who will implement this. In that case it should be a grant, not a bounty.
On the one hand, you can already use SSV with Rocket Pool so this is just a quality of life enhancement. On the other hand, no one is using it today apart from a small group of early adopters so it’s definitely needed.
Fund it. Double it.
No opinion, don’t care.
I think most/all slashings are accidents. I don’t think people who make these mistakes would load only one validator key at a time, so I don’t see how this would help in practice.
It was deleted but I wouldn’t fund it. It will be possible to implement a GUI in Smartnode 2.0 and it’s a much better use of time and resources. Maintaining a TUI in addition to a GUI and CLI would be a lot of extra work and complexity.
Spam. Ignore it.
Can’t spell Rocket Pool correctly. No cost given and they want someone to jump on a call with them. How can you trust their audits when they have poor reading comprehension?
Don’t fund it, sorry.
I was at last year’s event and it was lame. Sure, many community members went there but the venue was crap. There was a queue to get in, it was near homeless camps, they ran out of pizza, the pizza was mediocre at best, you could smoke weed inside so it smelled, it was a bar but the organizers had to bring their own watery drinks like Bud Light.
Let’s support them. I don’t think this will have any meaningful ROI.
oDAO members have no obligation to do free stuff for Rocket Pool so it’s not an argument against funding this.
There’s no other way to get merch apart from going to conferences.
Add a condition to sell hoodies already in Milestone 1. Only good quality.
Fund it. They’re fun.
Fund it. I don’t watch it, I only watch Rocket Fuel but people do and we should fund it like we did Rocket Fuel.
Fund it. They deserve it.
It’s quite complex to index minipools and their activity on-chain correctly. But looks like they use pre-generated trees and didn’t implement their own. $30k is half of what Rocketscan got in funding. But at least it’s open source.
I don’t use it but looks very cheap, fund it.
I don’t understand what this is or what was done. Language barrier?
Did this one file with nothing much in it take 10 weeks to write and cost $6000? research/rocketpool/nodeoperator.md at cfb710737ab5548bbce600766cc7825499c3a281 · signalxu/research · GitHub
Was this supposed to be a grant?
Fund it. Double it so that people fight over a chance to participate in the future.
It was posted after the deadline. Follow the rules and wait until the next round.
Given the need for deep team involvement, I would need to see team interest to recommend moving forward.
The price is modest, the exposure is valuable. Our community is a huge asset and bringing more folks into the fold (either into community or being pro-RP beyond the community) is valuable.
The price is modest and the exposure is valuable because it is highly targeted. I request some casual discord ideation on how to make this pack a punch (eg, link to Lido dominance; eg, link to Lido self limit vote).
I support this with a payback mechanism. I think it makes sense that showing your support comes with supporting the cause.
The event-based poaps feel very community-y. The more routine ones (eg upgrades), don’t hit too hard for me. I defer to others if they are meaningful there. In short - I support the overall, and would take a little thought about whether all of these are generating value.
I’m not getting 50-125 per week. I’m seeing more like 1600 views across 40 episodes, which is like ~40 views per episode. The trend seems flattish. That seems quite modest. I’m not a big video consumer, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
I wish this was a lot more user-focused. I see three real applications:
- User splits their key and has others run their validators (like allnodes, but not)
- User participates as a node on SSV that others can choose
- Several users work together to run validators
- The easy version is just the above two - eg a few friends work together to get higher attestation rate
- The full version adds a way to generate the keys without anyone ever having a full key
This seems to be aiming for the first. I’m not sure how valuable that is alone, as most options are huge stakers.
ROI seems reasonable here. I might consider adding a little to the “small” ones - maybe $100-200 each. It takes a little work to get started if you’re not already immersed.
I don’t think this should be opt-in. Should be opt-out, and perhaps even “hard” opt-out like you have to modify a file rather than just TUI it.
I would be interested in how many people actually use this to price out the total amount. My suggestion would be $10k now and then run a survey in ~May to understand how much use it actually got. $30k does not seem outlandish at all, fwiw, and it could potentially be higher if there’s huge usage too.
I point people here all the time. It’s cheap af. Consider increasing a bit.
At this time, this is not actionable research. There are no clear goals and the depth/clarity doesn’t lend itself to making any decisions.
Seems reasonable. The individuals were highly skilled and spent significant effort.
Hello @peteris ,
Thank you for the comment.
The SSV DAO is putting this out as a bounty to call for applicants to build it.
Hello @Valdorff ,
Thank you for your comment.
the points you mentioned in your response are part of our phase 2 plan. The second phase will involve the implementation and facilitation of squad staking for minipool, also you are right, the phase 2 will include DKG - “generate the keys without anyone ever having a full key”, the tools is currently available on testnet, pending final audit for main net usage.
I would greatly appreciate feedback, Should we include all the objectives in a single, comprehensive bounty, or should we proceed with the planned division?
Thank you for time spent going through the bounty!
I had promised to put up my research into the Merchandise store for my grant request. If you love being bored: Merchandise Store Research
Hi @Valdorff – Glory from Halborn here. I’d love to set up a call with my team and RPL’s Grants team to have a discussion about the value we can add, as well as offer some sense of scoping. What’s the best way to do that?
Thanks for your inquiry, if the GMC has any interest or needs clarification, they will reach out.
Thank you - appreciate it!