SSV Integration

Grants / Bounties
1

The GMC is currently reviewing a bounty regarding the integration of SSV. Discussions have centered around the operational aspects of this integration. While the RP team is supportive of the SSV integration, their focus remains primarily on Houston, Saturn, and megapools. Despite the general support within the GMC, the GMC is keen on gauging community sentiment. The estimated costs for this endeavor, including bounty work and audit expenses, stand at approximately $50k.

Should the protocol seek to integrate SSV?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Commitment
Given the intricacies and dependencies involved, there is a strong case for having a dedicated party extremely knowledgeable of both RocketPool and SSV to undertake this project. It’s also imperative that the proposed work takes megapools into consideration to the fullest extent possible. Along with gauging overall sentiment, the GMC aims to use this thread to identify any interested parties within the Rocket Pool community willing to lead this initiative. If you are interested, please provide details in the comments section below.

Implementation
Right now the bounty outlines interested parties bringing a MVP detailing the design of the integration:

“The bounty for integrating SSV technology with Rocket Pool will be open for a duration of two months. Within this time frame, we welcome submissions from any number of teams or individuals who are prepared to present an MVP focused on SSV integration. We encourage early submissions to foster a collaborative environment. As soon as we receive the first qualifying MVP submission, a subsequent period of two weeks will commence, during which other participants can still submit their versions of the MVP for consideration. Following this two-week window, one team will be selected and awarded one-third of the total bounty prize. This chosen team will then have the exclusive option to undertake the complete project, thereby claiming the remaining portion of the bounty. This approach ensures a competitive yet collaborative atmosphere, driving innovation while maintaining a focus on delivering a high-quality, functional integration of SSV with Rocket Pool.”

Does the community see this approach as feasible, or are there any suggestions to make this process more efficient?

3 Likes
2

I think the above is fairly clear, but I do want to point out that voting Yes above means you want the protocol to look into SSV integration.

This could take many forms and is a potentially complex decision (similar to the EigenLayer discussion some weeks ago).

This is not necessarily a Yes vote for the specific bounty that is mentioned. That might be a convenient starting point for discussion, however.

For example, I am interested in pDAO potentially funding a bounty or more likely a grant that integrates SSV into RP with help from SSV and RP core teams as they have time, so I am voting Yes. I do, however, have some issues with the existing bounty as it currently stands.

2 Likes
3

Is this for “making it easy to run an RP node using specified SSV operators”, “making it easy for an RP operator to be an SSV operator”, both, something else specific, or “anything ssv related”?

Cuz I’m like:

  • Yes (allnodes alternative)
  • No (doubt many of us could attract a relevant number of users)
  • Yes (enables “friends work together”)
  • need info
  • Yes, I guess
1 Like
4

It’s sort of a catch-all question.

Which SSV related things would you want, which would you not?
Any other insights or ideas on a potential integration, etc.

If you vote Yes, you are just saying in some capacity, we should do something SSV related (and then we hope you say what and how and that you or someone you know would love to work on it).

5

Terrific. Voted per my 5th bullet and my opinions are provided in the first three. :joy:

6

Why SSV over Obol? I have been interested in setting up a DVT cluster, so this feature would be of interest to me. So far I have setup a solo Obol cluster on top of the Rocketpool smartnode stack on Holesky and was also thinking of trying to split my Holesky minipool validator key into an Obol cluster as well. So that’s the sort of thing I’ve been looking into, as opposed to a squad staking type of setup, although there are similarities with that type of setup as well.