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

Grants & Incentives
61

Hello! @ChronoTrigger @Curia @SEEDGov @LEGOSI @Axia @PGov @tamlerner @scguaquetam

A consolidated update on the FES pilot.

Several threads have converged since my last post, and I want to address
them together rather than piecemeal.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CORRECTION ON PARTICIPANT COUNT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

During recording of the presentation, the cohort was described as 19
participants. After post-recording verification of the frozen snapshot,
one participant was filtered out for not meeting the minimum balance
threshold (500 RIF). The final verified number is 18:

  • Group A (generic message): 9 wallets
  • Group B (personalized report): 8 wallets
  • Group VIP: 1 wallet

This correction is documented for transparency.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SNAPSHOT PUBLISHED AND INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The snapshot is frozen, verified, and published to IPFS:

For independent verification, two scripts are published in the repository:

The verification script attempts to resolve the CID through four public
gateways (Pinata, ipfs.io, Cloudflare, dweb.link), recomputes the SHA-256
hash of each wallet using the published seed, rebuilds the Merkle tree with
domain separation (0x00 for leaves, 0x01 for internal nodes), and confirms
that the published Merkle root matches. Anyone can run it.

Two things worth flagging upfront:

  1. The balance distribution between cohorts is not uniform. Group A’s
    median balance is roughly 3x Group B’s (72,046 vs 24,386 RIF). We chose
    not to re-assign cohorts because the assignment rules were pre-registered.
    This imbalance biases the experiment against the hypothesis: if Group B
    converts better despite smaller balances, that strengthens the signal.

  2. The snapshot contains ordinal balance bands, not exact balances. This is
    a deliberate privacy choice. The verification script allows anyone to
    recompute the Merkle root from the public bands.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
VIDEO PRESENTATION LIVE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The recorded presentation and Q&A with Sebas is now live on YouTube: The video was recorded in Spanish, as requested by the Rootstock team; however, I added English subtitles that I personally reviewed. I hope they prove useful.

The video covers the pilot design, a live demo of the preview page and the
internal dashboard, and the full Q&A. Note: during recording the cohort was
described as 19 participants; the correction above (18) supersedes that.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
OBSERVATION WINDOW — AWAITING CHANNEL CONFIRMATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

We are ready to begin and remain in active coordination with @tamlerner and
@Gwgwvas to have the pilot link placed in an official Collective channel.
This has been the agreed distribution method from the start and ensures the
observation window opens with the Collective’s endorsement and a clean,
verifiable start date.

The snapshot above is already frozen and public. The moment the channel
placement is confirmed, we will publish the link there, announce the exact
start timestamp here, and the 4-week window will begin.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ON THE A/B COMPARISON
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The final report will preserve the group-level breakdown as the primary
analytical frame. Two layers will be reported side by side:

  • Per-wallet conversion, to prevent a single large holder from dominating
    the outcome.

  • Group-level conversion rates: Group A (generic message) vs. Group B
    (personalized report) vs. VIP, each with the same exposure floor applied
    independently. If a group has fewer than the pre-registered minimum of
    views, its result is flagged as inconclusive rather than reported as a rate.

The group-level rate is what speaks to the core question: does personalization
add anything beyond receiving a prompt. Both go in the report.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RESPONSE TO IBUKI — RISK DISCLOSURE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

A legitimate point, and I want to answer it honestly. The personalized reports
in the pilot do not include explicit risk disclosure. They show projected yield
and link to the official Collective staking page where terms and conditions
live — but this is not the same as having risks explained alongside the reward
estimate.

We cannot change the templates mid-pilot without invalidating the frozen
cohort. If the pilot produces a signal worth scaling, the next iteration will
include a short, plain-language risk summary alongside the reward estimate,
covering withdrawal conditions, reward variability, and the difference between
estimate and guarantee. We will propose this explicitly in the final report.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RESPONSE TO LEGOSI AND SEEDGOV — BUILDER PROSPECTING
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This is a genuinely strong idea, and I want to engage with it seriously.

The current pilot assumes Andromeda or the Collective carries the distribution
burden. But the actor most motivated to activate idle RIF is the builders
themselves, and they are absent from that model.

What you’re describing is a two-sided activation marketplace:

  • Builders see which inactive wallets have historically interacted with
    protocols similar to theirs.
  • Builders target those sub-communities directly with their own messaging.
  • Holders see recommendations from builders they already have a relationship
    with, rather than generic prompts from a DAO.

That is a more scalable distribution model, and it uses exactly the data
infrastructure we already built: the connectors, the Atlas graph, and the
multi-chain identity resolution.

We cannot fold it into the current pilot because the snapshot is frozen, the
cohorts are assigned, and the observation window is designed to test one
specific mechanism. But it should shape Phase 2. If the pilot produces a signal
worth scaling, we will propose a builder-facing dashboard with opt-in matching
and dual attribution that credits both the builder’s outreach and the holder’s
decision, so the Collective can measure which builder campaigns actually moved
capital.

@SEEDGov — thanks for surfacing this. It reframes the distribution question in
a way that makes the infrastructure’s long-term value much clearer.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
KEY LINKS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Public preview page:

IPFS snapshot:

https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZZpiMZcLmsm3K8ASHaXB3t9Pkdi4ZNsYci7FWTY9ja9b

Snapshot generator:

Independent verifier:

Repository:

Technical paper:

Interactive graphics:

AVIP verification tool:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

We’ll post the full report at the end of the 4-week window. Thanks to
everyone for the continued engagement — the rigor in this thread has made
the pilot materially stronger.

1 Like
62

Hello @Ilichb , thank you for this comprehensive update, for providing the underlying documentation and the verification scripts. Also great job on the video, very comprehensive. We also really appreciate you taking the extra time to add english subtitles to the video presentation.

We want to acknowledge several key items from your post:

  • Snapshot Correction & Reproducibility: Adjusting the verified cohort to 18 after enforcing the 500 RIF floor and publishing the Merkle root to IPFS with independent verification scripts sets the appropriate technical standard for auditability.

  • Risk Disclosures: Thank you for directly addressing another delegate’s feedback regarding the current absence of explicit risk disclosures in the pilot templates. Incorporating plain-language risk summaries into any subsequent iteration is the correct path forward.

  • Builder Prospecting: @SEEDGov point regarding a two-sided activation marketplace is a really strong addition. Leveraging the infrastructure as a prospecting tool for builders offers a much stronger, scalable value proposition for the ecosystem long-term.

With the cohort frozen and the mechanics established, the focus now shifts entirely to execution. We look forward to the link going live so the 4 week observation window can begin, and we will review the final output against these agreed-upon parameters. Tks!

1 Like
63

Thank you, @DAOstar_gov much appreciated, and thank you for the detailed read of both the post and the video.

We’re aligned on all three points: the corrected cohort of 18 is the frozen baseline, the risk-disclosure gap is documented for the next iteration, and the builder-prospecting model is the right direction for
Phase 2 if the pilot produces a signal worth scaling.

We’re now in execution mode. The snapshot is public, the verification scripts are live, and the link is ready to go. We’re waiting on the channel confirmation from the Rootstock team to publish it and start
the 4-week window.

As soon as we have that, we’ll announce the exact start timestamp here and the observation period begins. We’ll report the full dataset at the end of the window.

Thank you for the rigor throughout. It’s made the pilot materially stronger.

1 Like
64

Hey community!

Here’s the AMA with the Andromeda team, featuring questions prepared by RootstockCollective. The session is in Spanish.

1 Like
65

Thanks for sharing the AMA, Georgia, and thanks to the Andromeda team for the walkthrough.

Good to see the progress. A couple of points worth clarifying: what concrete value would the infrastructure deliver beyond the pilot, and does the final funding structure align with the current Grants Guidelines?

One minor observation: FES is already used for Funding Efficiency Score in the Grants Guidelines, so using the same acronym here might create some confusion.

1 Like
66

Thanks Kaf, good questions, and the FES naming point is worth addressing directly.

ON THE FES ACRONYM

You’re right that the acronym overlaps, and we should have clarified this earlier. In our pilot, FES stands for Framework for Engagement & Staking. It’s the name we use internally for the pilot’s design, the structure that tests whether personalized yield reports drive staking
behavior among idle RIF holders.

The Funding Efficiency Score in the Grants Guidelines is the Lab’s framework for measuring on-chain value returned by funded projects.
These are different objects with different purposes. The overlap is unfortunate and we’ll use the full name (“Framework for Engagement & Staking”) or simply refer to it as “the pilot” going forward, to avoid confusion.

If our infrastructure eventually feeds data into the Lab’s Funding Efficiency Score, that would be as a complementary source, not as a competing implementation.

ON CONCRETE VALUE BEYOND THE PILOT

Three things, in order of how soon they can be delivered:

  1. Reusable data infrastructure (immediate). The connectors, ingestion pipeline, and GraphQL endpoints we built for Rootstock are ecosystem-agnostic. Any Rootstock team that wants structured data on governance activity, staking distribution, or builder contribution patterns can consume the same endpoints without rebuilding them. All MIT-licensed.

  2. Builder prospecting layer (post-pilot, if signal is real). This is the direction @LEGOSI and @SEEDGov raised in the thread: turning the dashboard from a passive surface into a tool that lets builders see which inactive wallets have historically interacted with protocols similar to theirs. That converts the infrastructure into a two-sided activation marketplace, and it uses the same data layer we already have.

  3. Reputation primitives for governance (Phase 2+). The AVIP engine produces verifiable TrustScores that could be consumed by future governance tooling for example, the delegation-transparency use case @Axia mentioned. That requires community discussion about whether the Collective wants that, so it’s not something we’d propose unilaterally.

The pilot itself is the smallest deliverable in that list. It’s the proof that the mechanism works before scaling anything.

ON ALIGNMENT WITH CURRENT GRANTS GUIDELINES

The current structure was designed to satisfy V3.2.2:

  • Total: $11,200 across four stages.
  • Three stages are build-completion payments: FES endpoint ($3,500),
    dashboard ($3,350), hardening and documentation ($750).
  • The fourth stage is an outcome gate: $3,600, which is 32.1% of the
    total, above the >30% holdback the guidelines require.
  • No funds are released until deliverables are verified. If the
    outcome gate is not met, that tranche returns to the treasury.

Thanks!

67

Hello! @Curia @Eren_DAOplomats @LEGOSI @SEEDGov @PGov @DAOstar_gov Quick update on the observation window.

Following up on the channel distribution, @Georgia confirmed today that the Collective’s social media calendar was full last week, which is why the pilot link did not go live on X, Discord, or the Telegram community. She expects the link to be published this week.

We will confirm the exact publication timestamps here as soon as the link is live on each channel. The 4-week observation window will start from the first official post.

Nothing needed from delegates at this point, just keeping the thread updated so the status is clear.

RRRRRRr
RRRRRRr1582×1049 162 KB

3 Likes
68

gm to all!

this is done from our side!

Telegram: Telegram: View @rootstockcollective
X: RootstockCollective on X: "Holding $RIF without staking? You might be leaving rewards on the table. We're running a 4-week pilot with @Andromedacomp to help idle RIF holders see what they could be earning. Check your report 👇 https://t.co/kK9M9H8LVU" / X
Discord: Discord

1 Like
69

Notification: @Georgia @Curia @ChronoTrigger @DAOstar_gov @Eren_DAOplomats

@LEGOSI @IBUKI @Axia @tamlerner @PGov

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
OBSERVATION WINDOW IS NOW LIVE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The pilot link has been published on all three official Rootstock
Collective channels:

Start timestamp: October 14, 2026 — 08:45 UTC (04:45 Venezuela time)
End timestamp: November 11, 2026 — 08:45 UTC

The 4-week observation window is now open. Views entering through these channels will be attributed as “official-channel distribution” in the final report, separate from organic traffic.

The snapshot, verification scripts, and video presentation remain available at the links shared in previous posts.

We’ll report the full dataset at the end of the window: per-wallet conversion, group-level A/B comparison, and source-channel breakdown.

Thanks to Georgia, Eleanor, and the rest of the Rootstock team for making this happen, and to the delegates who kept nudging it forward throughout the thread.

1 Like