Thanks for the update, @Josie.
Is this intended as the M3 completion report? The structure mirrors the M1 and M2 final reports, but the Next Phase section overlaps with what Francisco scoped as M4 in the revised milestone plan, which leaves the M3-vs-M4 boundary fuzzy.
Either way, before any M4 proposal goes on-chain, could you share per-item evidence against the three revised M3 outputs Francisco committed to: audit reports, on-chain RIF staking proof, and prepared GTM campaign material?
Thanks for the updates @Josie and itâs good to see both Superstake and Peach Bitcoin live on Rootstock mainnet.
As Rootstock has updated the grant framework under V3.2 to focus more heavily on measurable ecosystem impact, we think it becomes increasingly important that the value created for Rootstock can be clearly verified and attributed over time.
From our perspective, Infrastructure Ventures functions more as an ecosystem acceleration and onboarding partner, therefore evaluation may need to go beyond simply measuring how many projects have been deployed. The more important question is how much sustained impact those projects ultimately create for Rootstock individually and collectively. Given the original KPI of $500K+ TVL within 6 months, how far are we from that target today? And are there additional metrics being tracked alongside TVL, given that the Collective is moving toward FES-based evaluation?
Regarding the two currently deployed projects:
For Superstake, the current early-stage volume is understandable given the recent Rootstock integration. At the same time, since the team shared projections around 200K+ transactions and $300K+ on-chain volume within ~2.5 months, it would be useful to better understand the GTM and user acquisition strategy expected to drive those numbers, echoing @Tane earlier ask on GTM visibility.
For Peach Bitcoin, weâre still trying to better understand the integration flow and what specifically drives Rootstock usage here. From what we could see, Peach already supports Bitcoin mainnet and Liquid Network settlement. Could you clarify:
how many chains/networks Peach currently integrates with, and
whether users manually choose their settlement network or whether Peach routes automatically based on cost or liquidity conditions?
The reason we ask is because Rootstock here appears to be competing as a third settlement option, so understanding why users would specifically choose Rootstock becomes important when evaluating ecosystem impact.
Regarding the report section mentioning:
These are directionally positive, but under the newer V3.2 framework it would be important that these claims can also be verified through measurable indicators.
For example:
Without these, itâs harder for us to get a clear picture of where Peach Bitcoinâs Rootstock integration actually stands today.
Thanks Tane! And yes, this is meant to be the M3 submission/update, not an M4 proposal.
The âNext Phaseâ section was mostly there to give some context on where we expect things to go after the current deployment and activation work, not to present M4 deliverables as already completed.
For the revised M3 outputs Francisco mentioned, weâre still pulling together the remaining supporting materials and will update the thread with a clearer item-by-item evidence breakdown covering:
audit/security review materials
on-chain RIF staking proof
prepared GTM campaign materials
once everythingâs fully consolidated.
Thanks for the detailed questions and feedback. A lot of the points you raised are the same things weâve been discussing internally as we adjust the reporting structure under the updated v3.2 framework.
We agree that for this type of ecosystem growth initiative, deployment count by itself isnât enough. The bigger question is whether these integrations eventually lead to sustained usage, transaction activity, and broader participation on Rootstock over time.
For Superstake, the rollout is still at a relatively early stage, and the GTM/ecosystem expansion work is still ongoing. Weâll include more context around the rollout and supporting GTM materials in the revised M3 evidence update.
For Peach Bitcoin, those are fair questions too. Part of the flow happens through application-layer infrastructure before settlement, so weâre working with the team to provide a clearer explanation of the integration flow, current visibility into Rootstock usage, and which measurable indicators we can reasonably share at this stage.
More generally, one of the things weâre still working through under V3.2 is how infra/payment-focused integrations should be evaluated during the earlier phases, before transaction routing and ecosystem activity are fully reflected on-chain.
Weâll continue compiling the remaining supporting materials and measurable indicators into the updated M3 evidence breakdown.
Thanks for the M3 update, and congrats on delivering 2 mainnet deployments against the original target of 1.
Would like to clarify, on the deployment side, the acceptance criteria specifically required audited contracts but I donât see an audit report attached for Superstake. Given that CashOrCrash is a chance based gaming contract handling real funds, an audit feels particularly important here for transparency and user safety.
Similarly, no contract address was provided for Peach Bitcoinâs Rootstock integration. Could you share them to verify the deployment onchain?
On RIF treasury allocation, I think this was one of the core differentiators of this proposal and a clear M3 deliverable (â„50% of projects completing 15â25% RIF treasury allocation). However, the report doesnât mention it at all. Given that 4 projects signed LOIs, Iâd have expected at least some movement on this by now. Could the team share an update on where each project stands on RIF treasury implementation, and whether any on chain proof is available?
Thanks @Josie
Thanks for the update, @Josie . Hitting two mainnet deployments is a great milestone but have to align with @Ignas here regarding basic verification. If the acceptance criteria explicitly required audited contracts, trying to clear M3 without attaching the audit report is a risk overall. Canât really evaluate this milestone properly without seeing exactly where those projects stand on-chain with their allocations.
Hi @Josie when connecting my wallet, I only see options for Ethereum & Solana networks. Even though I am on the Rootstock site and the gameplay is in RBTC. Any tips for how to connect to Rootstock?
Hi @Francisco can you please share a link to Peach Bitcoin? Iâd like to test it out.
Thanks @Ignas ! We appreciate the detailed review and the questions here.
On the SuperStake side, the contract has already been deployed and verified on Rootstock mainnet, and the corresponding methods are publicly visible on Blockscout here:
https://rootstock.blockscout.com/address/0xba99E88063Bf8b92503F8883afdae6948D2a6b88?tab=read_write_contract
Weâve also been actively working with the team and RST contributors over the past few days on transaction cost analysis and gameplay execution profiling, specifically around the core createGame and cashOut paths, as these became important operational considerations after deployment.
Regarding the audit report, agreed that security transparency is important given the nature of the application. The team has already shared internal security review materials and implementation notes with contributors during the deployment process, and weâre currently coordinating on what can be consolidated into a public-facing update for the forum thread.
For Peach Bitcoin, thanks for flagging this as well. Weâre following up with the team regarding the deployment references and integration details. If additional onchain references or supporting materials become available, weâll make sure to update the proposal thread accordingly.
At the current stage:
4 projects have signed LOIs
Treasury allocation discussions have already started with participating teams
Staking/treasury structure alignment is currently still being finalized alongside deployment and operational considerations
Weâll make sure to provide a clearer breakdown project-by-project, including what has already been implemented versus what is still pending execution/on-chain finalization.
Appreciate the push for more transparency here, weâll continue updating the thread as the remaining pieces are finalized.
Thanks @Eren_DAOplomats! Thatâs completely fair, and we understand the concern around verification standards and visibility on the current on-chain status of the deployments and treasury-related work.
Over the last few days, weâve been consolidating deployment references, contract verification details, operational updates, and ongoing discussions with the participating teams so the thread reflects the actual state of execution more clearly.
For SuperStake specifically, the deployed contract is already publicly verified on Rootstock Blockscout, and weâre currently coordinating additional supporting materials and security-related documentation with the team side.
On the treasury allocation side, we agree that the original update did not provide enough granularity project-by-project. Weâll continue updating the thread with clearer implementation status and supporting references as the remaining items are finalized.
Thank you again for pushing for higher transparency standards here:)
Hi @Axia, thanks for flagging this.
At the moment, SuperStake supports standard EVM wallets (such as MetaMask) connected through the Rootstock network, rather than a separate ânative Rootstock walletâ option in the wallet selector itself.
So in practice:
users connect an EVM wallet like MetaMask
then switch/add the Rootstock network inside the wallet
gameplay transactions are still executed on Rootstock using RBTC
Weâve already discussed this with the team over the past few days, and agree the current wallet UX can definitely be made more intuitive/explicit for users interacting through the Rootstock version of the app.
The team is currently reviewing improvements around clearer Rootstock network visibility, wallet flow guidance, and connection prompts so the onboarding experience feels less confusing.
Pls feel free to keep updated if you have any concerns related to this product. Thank you!
And for the link to Peach Bitcoin, you can check it here: https://peachbitcoin.com/
Depending on the region/network/IP configuration, some users may occasionally run into temporary security or access restrictions from the site protection layer, but the team is aware of it. If you run into any issues accessing the site, feel free to share a screenshot/error message, and we can forward it to the team for review.
Hi @Josie hereâs the error I get on Peachbitcoin.
Hi @Axia, thanks for checking and sharing the screenshot. Looks like itâs not just on my side then, seems PeachBitcoinâs Cloudflare/security settings may currently be blocking certain regions, IPs, or mobile traffic.
Weâll reach out to the Peach team directly to confirm whatâs causing it and whether thereâs an alternative access method or a whitelist needed. Will update here once we hear back 
Hi @Axia, could you try testing through the mobile app instead and let us know if it works there?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.peachbitcoin.peach.mainnet&pli=1
Hi @Axia
Thanks for flagging this.
We tested the app and were able to access it successfully. It appears availability may vary depending on country/region restrictions. Sharing screenshots below for reference showing the app functioning and the Rootstock USDT flow available in-app.
From our side, the integration is live and operational, users can access the marketplace and Rootstock USDT payment option inside the app. Weâll also follow up with the team regarding broader regional availability.
Hi community, weâre sharing a brief SuperStake milestone evidence update.
1. CashOrCrash Rootstock Deployment
SuperStake has completed the CashOrCrash deployment on Rootstock, and the deployed contract has been verified publicly for review.
2. Independent Technical & Security Review
We have also prepared and attached an Independent Technical & Security Review Memo for the CashOrCrash Rootstock deployment.
To be clear, this memo is not positioned as a formal audit certification. It is intended as an independent technical/security oversight and deployment review document, covering:
contract architecture
admin/signature model
operational and security considerations
deployment/runtime observations
upgradeability considerations
recommendations and scope disclaimer
3. GTM Materials
The GTM activation materials have also been prepared and shared here for transparency. These include the planned communications and rollout direction for the Rootstock launch.
We understand the communityâs focus on verifiable evidence, so the current update is meant to make the completed deployment, technical review, and GTM materials easier to review in one place.
Thank you!
Monthly Update: May
This month we focused on laying the groundwork for growth around SuperStake/CashOrCrash on Rootstock.
Highlights:
Current on-chain snapshot:
Itâs still early, but the focus right now is simple: improve UX, strengthen readiness, and prepare for broader user activation.
Next Step:
Check here for the full report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iktJOrVaAdtB-FiNToMoIlg6jyVgETiR/view?usp=drive_link
Hi Community,
Our Milestone 4 â Acceleration Phase 3: Growth & Funding has been submitted onchain.
We continue available for any questions!
@Curia @DAOstar_gov @ChronoTrigger @Kaf_Anode @Ignas
Hi @Francisco and @Josie, thanks for continuing to update the thread and the tracking sheet. I appreciate the amount of reporting work going into this, but Iâm still not comfortable supporting the next $15k tranche until a few gaps are clarified.
My main concern is that the project mix and value proposition have shifted materially from what delegates were evaluating earlier in the program.
At the M2 stage, the signed/onboarded cohort was Peach Bitcoin, Cyclo, Caddy Finance, and Blockroll. Shortly after that, Francisco noted that Cyclo and Caddy Finance were expected to be the primary candidates/drivers for the final TVL and ecosystem goals. That made sense to me at the time: those were more clearly DeFi / BTCFi-oriented integrations with a plausible path to meaningful Rootstock liquidity or usage.
But in the current tracking sheet, the actual live deployments are only Peach Bitcoin and Superstake. Caddy Finance, Cyclo, Blockroll, and Tipper are now marked as dropped. That is a pretty large change in the substance of the program.
The two remaining projects also seem harder to evaluate against the original goals:
Peach Bitcoin is listed as live, but the sheet marks the contract address as âN/A (Payment Rail Model)â and the activity as âoff-chain/platform-level.â I understand that payment integrations may not look like DeFi TVL, but then we need a clearer measurable framework: Rootstock-routed payment count, Rootstock settlement volume, active users selecting Rootstock, repeat usage, etc. Right now it is hard to tell what Rootstock usage is actually happening or how much of it is attributable to this program. I also still have access issues with the website/app depending on region/device, which makes it harder to independently test the flow.
Superstake does have a verified Rootstock contract, but the current reported activity is still very small: 31 transactions, 8 wallets, and roughly $1,000 in volume. That may be fine for an early deployment, but it is not yet evidence of ecosystem impact. Also, the latest technical/security memo is explicitly not a formal audit certification, while the milestone language originally referenced audited contracts. Given this is a chance-based game handling real funds, the distinction matters.
The other major gap for me is RIF alignment. RIF treasury allocation / staking / governance participation was one of the main things that made this proposal feel differentiated from a general BD/onboarding program. But I donât see clear public evidence that the supported projects have completed meaningful RIF treasury allocation, on-chain staking, or RIF governance participation. In the current sheet, Peach is marked N/A for treasury strategy, and Superstake is marked Done, but I donât see the on-chain proof or governance participation records that would make that auditable.
So before approving the next tranche, Iâd like to see a concise project-by-project breakdown:
Iâm not trying to dismiss the work done so far. There has clearly been outreach, mentorship, and some deployment support. But the next tranche should be evaluated against the actual current portfolio and measurable Rootstock impact, not just the original pipeline narrative. Right now the stronger-looking candidates appear to have dropped, and the remaining evidence does not yet show the kind of RIF alignment or ecosystem traction that was central to the proposal.
