Thanks for the quick iteration. Cutting the ask and re-centering on idle RIF activation are real responses to the feedback.
The pivot frames the payment gates this way:
That holds for the build, but not for the outcome. All three stages are defined by build-completion triggers: the endpoint returning data for 24 hours, the dashboard rendering reports for ten sample wallets, the test suites passing. They confirm the tool was built and runs, but none measures whether it moves ecosystem activity. The stated purpose is to activate idle RIF, yet there is no target for how much idle RIF gets activated, how many new stakers the dashboard brings in, or how much stRIF moves as a result. The grant guidelines are explicit that unmeasurable outcomes are unfundable.
@SEEDGov already pushed on this from the payment side:
The revised schedule moves that way, but the gates as drawn verify that the code is live, not that it produced anything: because the final stage also pays on tests and docs, no tranche is ever tied to demonstrated activation. The safeguard is only half built.
What would change the picture is a concrete outcome target for the dashboard, say idle RIF activated or new stakers attributable to it over a defined window, plus how you would attribute that movement back to the tool. That turns the deliverable from “we shipped the dashboard” into “the dashboard produced this much activation,” which is what lets us assess funding efficiency, and it speaks to the overlap question @Curia raised earlier by showing what this adds on top of what the Lab is building internally.