[2606 Grant] Andromeda Core — Autonomous Reputation Infrastructure (Milestone 1)

Grants & Incentives
21

Hello @Ilichb for your response, and thank you so much, @Curia for raising these critical and excellent points! We share the same operational and ROI concerns regarding the current scope of the pilot.

Under the updated Rootstock v3.2.2 guidelines, funded projects must demonstrate clear demand validation, measurable ROI, and align with the FES (Funding Efficiency Score) framework. The current success threshold of just 5 wallet views or 1 staking event is too low to prove a scalable impact on TVL or RIF utility, and as Curia noted, generating personalized yield projections for such mimimal amounts, yields poor unit economics.

Furthermore, the awareness gap remains unaddressed; if idle holders are outside our core channels, custom off-chain dashboards do not solve the distribution problem.

We are maintaining a neutral stance on this proposal. We look forward to seeing the pilot data on July 11th, but the team will need to address how these metrics translate to actual, meaningful RIF circulation and FES thresholds (rather than nominal interaction) before this can meet the v3.2.2 standards for funding. Tks.

22

These are legitimate concerns, and I appreciate the team for raising them directly. Let’s address each one.

1. How do idle RIF holders actually see the report?

You are right: a wallet cannot be “messaged.” Our distribution strategy therefore targets the intersection of idle holders and reachable audiences. We are not assuming that a single link on a Rootstock channel will magically reach someone who never checks those channels. We are doing three things:

  • On‑chain identification, off‑chain search: For every idle wallet that meets our criteria, we search for any associated public identity (ENS names, Lens profiles, public GitHub handles, Twitter handles from bio, etc.). This is manual, small‑scale work for a pilot — we are targeting 20‑30 wallets, not hundreds.

  • Direct outreach where possible: If we find a matching Twitter handle or Discord username, we send a short, factual message: “You hold X RIF. Based on your balance, you would have earned Y RIF if you had staked with these builders. Here’s a link to your report.” We will only contact individuals who have publicly associated their wallet address with that identity (e.g., in a Twitter bio, a Lens profile, or a forum signature). No unsolicited messages will be sent to unverified links. This is not spam; it is personalized information delivered to someone who holds a token and may not know its utility.

  • Public amplification: The link in the Collective’s channels serves as a credibility signal and a secondary distribution path, not the primary one.

We cannot guarantee every idle holder will see the report. We are targeting at least 20 idle wallets for direct outreach. If we cannot find public identities for that many, we will report transparently on how many were reachable and adjust the evaluation accordingly.

2. 100 RIF floor and the value of personalized reports

You are right that 100 RIF is too low to generate meaningful motivation. We will raise the floor to 500 RIF for the pilot. At current staking yields, that translates to a projected annual return of approximately 60 RIF, or roughly $4–$6 — still modest, but enough to be worth someone’s attention, especially if the report also shows that builders they might recognize (like WoodSwap or Asami.Club) are generating those returns consistently.

On the “personalized report vs. generic message” question: we agree that the awareness gap is real, and that a generic message would be simpler. However, we are not trying to solve the entire awareness problem with a pilot. We are testing a specific hypothesis: does showing an idle holder exactly how much they are leaving on the table, with specific builders they might recognize, change their behavior more than a generic “stake and earn” message? The Collective Reward dApp shows a projection only after the holder is already on the staking page. Our report meets them before that point, with data pulled from their actual balance and the actual performance of the builders they would be backing. The pilot tests whether that bridge matters. If it doesn’t, we will have learned that the gap is purely awareness, not information design. That is a valuable result either way.

3. FES endpoint value and Lab confirmation

The Lab has not confirmed that they will consume the FES endpoint. We have requested a technical review; that conversation is pending. The endpoint is not required for the pilot’s success metrics, and the pilot’s outcome does not depend on it. It is an additional deliverable we commit to building as part of Stage 1, which we believe will be useful to the Collective regardless of whether the Lab chooses to integrate it today. If the Lab confirms interest during the pilot, that strengthens the case for funding; if not, the endpoint remains available as open‑source infrastructure.

We are not asking the DAO to fund a marketing campaign or to endorse the pilot as a solution to the 2.3% problem. We are asking the DAO to let us run a small, self‑funded experiment to test one hypothesis about why idle holders stay idle. If the experiment fails, the DAO has risked nothing, and we all learn something. If it succeeds, we have a data‑driven signal to inform a larger proposal. Either way, we’re committed to running the experiment honestly and reporting the results transparently.

1 Like
23

The current version is much different from the original proposal, and we appreciate the way you’ve worked through the concerns with the other delegates here.

We could keep going back and forth on this (there are still concerns for us, e.g. scalability), but this thread has already come a long way, and we don’t think more back-and-forth gets us much further right now. At this point, waiting to see the actual pilot results and re-evaluating from something concrete makes more sense than debating it in theory.

So we’ll stay cautious for now and look forward to seeing the pilot results.

1 Like
24

Appreciate how far this has come, @Ilichb, and I agree the right move now is to let the pilot run rather than keep refining terms in the abstract. My one concern is whether the pilot can actually answer the question it exists to answer.

The hypothesis is that a personalized yield report shifts idle-holder behavior more than a generic nudge. But the distribution method described above is manual identification of 20 to 30 wallets and a direct message to each. If a wallet stakes after that, the active ingredient is ambiguous. It could be the report’s data design, or simply that a human personally reached out to a high-balance idle holder, which tends to convert regardless of report content. The deeper issue is that hand-picked one-by-one outreach is the opposite of autonomous reports surfaced to the idle population at large, so a pilot that converts through direct outreach validates manual effort, not the infrastructure the grant would later scale. That is the concrete version of the scalability worry @Curia flagged.

I am not suggesting another budget round or a control group, as the sample is too small to carry one. Two cheap things would make the results more credible: State before the window opens which conversion mechanism you will credit, so a win cannot be retrofitted to the report after the fact; and in the report label each attributed stake by how the holder arrived, direct outreach versus organic discovery of the public link. That single distinction tells us whether we are looking at a tool that pulls demand or effort that manufactures it, and only the first is worth scaling.

2 Likes