[2508 Grant Proposal] Winks.fun: On-chain actions on Rootstock within Twitter

Grants & Incentives
22

I’ve gone through the updated repository, the NPM package, and the GitBook. With these materials now available, the elements described for Milestone 1 are implemented, including the SDK core, Rootstock RPC handling, EIP-1193 provider, wallet integration, token and basic NFT utilities, signature management, build configuration, and the testing setup.

Thanks to the team for preparing and sharing the updated resources.

1 Like
23

Thanks for the confirmation!

We’re proceeding to milestone 2 now.

3 Likes
24

We voted against the active proposal not because we disapprove the proposal, but the proposal was apparently created in an inappropriate way. We encourage the team to discuss this with the Rootstock team and properly make another proposal with the right setup.

4 Likes
Tané Delegate Thread
25

After reviewing the correct updated submission, we are content with the proposal and believe the milestones were accurately met.

2 Likes
26

Thank you for the support!

2 Likes
27

Hello friends! Been a while since our last update, but the key updates are that milestone 2 is completed and validated. We’ve delivered:
Staking contract interfaces with pre-packaged hooks for staking operations, staking contract interaction abstractions, a callback-oriented interaction layer, among other things. We also delivered reference Winks, including a token transfer Wink, tRBTC faucet, and a staking Wink. This is accompanied by documentation including installation instructions and API reference for core functions. The KPIs this milestone achieved are: Staking functionality integrated, a ready Wink with a pre-defined function, successful transactions with Tweet generation, and operational faucet and staking operations.

In our next milestone, which we’ve already made progress on, we’re doing a second implementation, releasing comprehensive documentation and doing a full release of Winks on Rootstock, along with npm publication and complete testing framework, and ci/cd pipeline. We’re also getting ready for GTM conversations with protocols on Rootstock and plan to focus on distribution post M3. This distribution will be both desktop plus mobile X app.

Huge thanks to @tamlerner and @Kaf_Anode for their support! Onwards and upwards!

1 Like
28

Based on feedback from the Team and some Delegates, elaborating here on the technical scope we’re set to achieve with M3:

Deliverables for milestone 3:

Second reference Wink:

  1. Staking, faucet, or NFT interaction Wink

  2. Demonstrates advanced SDK capabilities

Package distribution:

  1. NPM and Github package publication

  2. Complete CI/CD pipelines

Comprehensive documentation:

  1. Technical documentation via Gitbook

  2. Usage examples and Rootstock-specific configuration

  3. Developer onboarding materials with demo apps

Testing suite:

  1. Playwright iframe embed testing

  2. Complete test coverage

KPIs for milestone 3:

  1. Two working reference implementations (token transfer + faucet, staking or NFT)

  2. Published SDK packages with automated CI/CD

  3. Complete Gitbook documentation live

  4. Testing pipeline functional

Since we’ve already made significant progress on the milestone, as confirmed by a Delegate, the timeline to complete this would be 7-10 days only. After this, the next set of challenges revolve around:

  • Adoption/distribution more than pure tech. For this, we’re working towards warm intros + POCs with potentially 3-5 projects that have a clear use-case for Winks.
  • Mobile UX will still be important to keep improving, especially for X mobile users. For this, we’re adding Alchemy social wallet (self-custody) integration.
  • Planning to expand testing around wallet edge cases/transaction flows too.
29

Appreciate the M3 scope walkthrough and the M2 work shipped. We reviewed the implementations in the rootstock-sdk.winks repo against the M2 deliverable list: stakeTransaction, faucet, and post-transaction Tweet generation are all present and match what’s promised by name. The implementations are minimal in places, and faucet in particular is a single HTTP call to an external endpoint that’s currently unreachable, so KPI 4 (faucet operations working) isn’t satisfied at runtime. Two clarifications on M2 plus a structural concern on M3 would help close out the review.

  • For M2, the KPIs include “one ready Wink with a pre-defined function” and “successful transactions with Tweet generation.” Could you share a Tweet rendering one of the reference Winks and a transaction hash from a Tweet-generation flow, so the end-to-end is inspectable?
  • On documentation, the current Gitbook reflects the M1 SDK surface but doesn’t yet document the M2 additions to staking hooks, the callback layer, or Tweet generation. Is the Gitbook update part of M3’s “comprehensive documentation via Gitbook” deliverable, or worth bringing in line with the README sooner?

On M3 ecosystem impact: the M3 scope covers SDK polish, a second reference Wink, NPM publication, CI/CD, Gitbook documentation, and Playwright testing. Your M3 elaboration places adoption and distribution work, including warm intros and POCs with 3-5 projects, after the grant completes. The V3.2 grant guidelines open with:

As scoped, M3 closes the grant without measurable Rootstock-side activity attributable to the work, and the FES accountability metric is undefined when ecosystem value generation depends on post-grant adoption. Folding a signed LOI or named integrator POC into M3 KPIs would change that. Without it, the case for the M3 milestone as currently scoped is thin.

30

Thanks for the response! I’ll share both the M2-related items you’ve asked for easy verification. For M3, let me get back on this shortly, thank you!

31

Hey @winksdotfun, thanks for the update. I have a significant concern before potentially supporting M3 funding. The core value proposition of Winks is distribution through Twitter/X, but when I click through prior Winksdotfun examples shared in your earlier comment, X first shows a warning that the link may be unsafe/spammy. Then, after choosing to ignore the warning and continue, the destination URL appears to be broken.

Before moving forward with M3, I’d like to see:

  • A clear explanation of why the prior Winks link is being flagged by X.
  • Confirmation of whether this is a domain reputation issue, redirect issue, hosting issue, or something else.
  • A working live Rootstock Wink rendered from X.
  • A transaction hash showing the end-to-end flow completing successfully.
  • A plan to prevent Rootstock Winks from being flagged or breaking in the same way.

Thanks and looking forward to your responses.

32

Hi @Tane. For the Tweet and txn hash, please see the URLs herewith;
1.⁠ ⁠Token Transfer Wink — Demo & Embed
a. Here is the live token transfer Wink on X:

https://x.com/UltimateWink/status/2036838093521822062?s=20

b. tx hash (token transfer):

2.⁠ ⁠Staking Wink + Tx Hash
a. Live Wink:

https://x.com/UltimateWink/status/2037784246635708524?s=20

b. tx hash (staking):

3.⁠ ⁠Faucet Wink + Tx Hash (the faucet is currently out of funds)
a. Live Wink:

https://x.com/UltimateWink/status/2033753686867120393?s=20

b. Testnet tx hash (faucet):

Regarding the documentation, M3 will cover everything, including the hooks, callback layer, etc.

33

Thanks for pulling these together, @winksdotfun.

These cover the two halves we asked for but not the link between them: a rendered Wink and a real on-chain stake, with nothing tying that transaction to the embed. A manual stake would look identical, so the tweet-to-transaction flow still is not inspectable end to end. The transfer hash is a plain rBTC send, and the faucet is out of funds. M2 is settled either way, so this is for the record, not to reopen it.

On M3, our position is the same one we laid out on the scope: SDK completion, packaging, and documentation are not measurable Rootstock activity on their own. A signed LOI or a named integrator would change that; without it, the case for the milestone stays thin.

34

Thanks @Tane. Noted your concerns on M3 - I’ll circle back on this shortly.

35

Hi @Axia! Thanks for your questions - your observations are correct, as well as your thesis. Our domain reputation for the core winks domain is affected due to cold spamming on emails as well as DMs (done for bd mostly), and thus the “potentially spammy link” warning. The “broken” links are because those Winks are no longer hosted on our server since their intended purpose was complete. For future non-flagging or non-breaking, we plan to use a different domain, and to keep their hosting live on server for at least 12 months (renewed if needed), and if they are of the type that have limited-period purpose, then we’ll show some fail-state landing page instead of just displaying a broken link.

Below are the examples you requested:
Live Rootstock Wink rendered from X:

https://x.com/UltimateWink/status/2036838093521822062?s=20

Trial tx hash from above Wink:

I trust this addresses your queries, but please let me know if you need any additional information or clarifications. Thank you!