404 Gov Delegate Thread

Delegate Platforms
1

Delegate Profile

Name / Handle

404Gov

RSK Address

0xE93D59CC0bcECFD4ac204827eF67c5266079E2b5

About Us

404 Gov is the professional governance arm of 404 DAO, a community of web3 professionals and students focused on advancing education, innovation, and adoption of blockchain technology in Atlanta. We actively contribute to many top protocols, including Uniswap, Arbitrum, Optimism, and NEAR. Our team is dedicated to promoting sustainable governance practices, growth, and decentralization.

Our experience includes active participation in various working groups and councils/committees, including Arbitrum LTIPP, Optimism ACC, Arbitrum Onboarding Lead, Arbitrum MSS, and as an endorsed delegate in NEAR. We look forward to bringing our experience and learnings from other ecosystems to Rootstock and extending the capabilities of Bitcoin.

Rationale for Votes

Grant application - roketto [Wave 1]

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Reasoning: We voted AGAINST Roketto’s grant application. Their application was missing foundational items, including clear and measurable KPIs.

[2506 Builder Activation] LayerBank

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Reasoning: We voted FOR LayerBank’s Builder Activation proposal. We believe LayerBank can drive value to Rootstock with their existing products and real traction.

Builder Activation – Symbiosis

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Reasoning: We voted FOR Symbiosis’ Builder Activation Proposal. We believe Symbiosis can drive value to Rootstock with their existing products and real traction.

Geyser

  1. Proposal : Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Reasoning: We voted AGAINST Geyser because their intention seems more aligned with the Collective Rewards program rather than a grant.

[25.06] Grant application - roketto [Wave 1 - Re-evaluated]

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted against the re-evaluated Roketto grant. Even after revisions, the applications is missing key foundational elements, including clear milestones and KPIs.

[2506 Builder Activation] Steer Protocol

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. We voted FOR Steer Protocol’s Builder Activation. We believe Steer Protocol can drive value to Rootstock with their existing products and real traction.

BΔLT – Decentralized Bitcoin Inheritance & Custody dApp

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: AGAINST
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal because it was intended to be a builder activation rather than a grant request.

[2505 Grant Proposal] Aconcagua Finance & Boveda.ai

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: AGAINST
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this grant proposal because it is missing foundational elements, including a public development repo, and the grant request is too high for this stage.

[0907 Grant Proposal] Rootstock QuestHub – M1

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Abstain
  3. Rationale: We abstained on this grant proposal. Although the proposal is well-structured, we were unsure about the gamified onboarding hub use case. Therefore, rather than voting against, we voted Abstain.

BΔLT – Decentralized Bitcoin Inheritance & Custody dApp

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. We voted FOR the BΔLT grant application. The application is well-structured with clear milestones and KPIs and the team has shown results with their working testnet.

Builder Deactivation Proposal – Beexo Protocol

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR deactivating Beexo. Beexo is based in the US which goes against Rootstock Collective’s geographic eligiblity rules.

[0708 Grant Proposal] Bitcoin Inheritance & Custody dApp – JXLabs | BΔLT – M2

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR BΔLT 's M2 grant request. BΔLT delivered on their M1 commitments, showing strong execution.

Alphaday – RSK Data Aggregator Dashboard

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Abstain
  3. Rationale: We voted Abstain on Alphaday’s RSK Dashboard because we felt we didn’t have all of the necessary information to make an educated decision.

[2503 Collective Rewards] Tally

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST because the request was submitted under the wrong category. It was submitted under Collective Rewards rather than Builder Activation.

[2507 Grant] BTCFi for Institutions: Multisig Custody with DeFi Access on Rootstock – Milestone 1

  1. Proposal: [2507 Grant] BTCFi for Institutions: Multisig Custody with DeFi Access on Rootstock – Milestone 1
  2. Vote: Abstain
  3. Rationale: We voted Abstain on BTCFI for Institutions because we felt we didn’t have all of the necessary information to make an educated decision.

[2503 Collective Rewards] Tally – Builder Activation

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR Tally’s Builder Activation. Tally is a leading governance platform and will be a strong addition as a Builder.
2

[2508 Grant Proposal] All-or-Nothing Crowdfunding with Rootstock - Milestone 1

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR All-or-Nothing Crowdfunding. The builder has a solid track record with Geyser and the grant has clear milestones and a roadmap.
3

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

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR the Winks.Fun grant proposal. We are confident in the team based on prior execution and the grant structure terms.

[2509 Grant Proposal] Building Rootstock Community of Developers and Users in Ghana

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal due to the incorrect information and failure to adhere to KYB process.
4

[2508 Grant Proposal] All-or-Nothing Crowdfunding with Rootstock - Milestone 2

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. We voted FOR this proposal to fund All Or Nothing’s 2nd Milestone. We were able to verify that the team met all previous milestones, therefore we were comfortable funding Milestone 2.

[2508 Grant] Fund the NetX State platform MVP

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST funding the NetX State Platform MVP. While the team presents a compelling vision in the regenerative finance space, the proposal feels overly ambitious relative to its current stage and requested funding amount. The product demo is compelling and the team’s motivation and network is evident, however the absence of market research or validation makes it premature for a grant. We would prefer the team first collaborate with other builders in the Rootstock ecosystem and conduct market research before returning to the DAO for a grant request.
5

[1410 Grant Proposal] Bitcoin Inheritance & Custody dApp – JXLabs | BΔLT - M3

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund BALT’s 3rd and final milestone. We were able to verify that the team met all previous milestones, therefore we were comfortable funding Milestone 3. We look forward to reviewing the team’s update on their growth efforts, lessons learned, and community adoption strategies — as promised in their Milestone 3 delivery.

[0907 Grant Proposal] Rootstock QuestHub - M3

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund Questhub’s 3rd Milestone. We were able to verify that the team met the first two milestones, therefore we were comfortable funding Milestone 3. We look forward to reviewing the outputs of Milestone 3.

[2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock - Milestone 1;SSI Sandbox Rootstock Integration, maturity and alpha launch

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund a Self-Sovereign-Identity sandbox. The team responded to our questions about their prior work and partnerships. That said, we will be monitoring this team’s performance specifically focusing on users and adoption.

[1507 Grant Proposal] ONG Bitcoin Argentina - Scaling Rootstock Adoption Through Education M2

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund the second Milestone of ONG Bitcoin Argentina. We were able to verify that the team met the first milestone, therefore we feel comfortable funding Milestone 2.
6

[2510 RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal 1-Year Extension M1;:compass: Proposal Summary

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to renew the ambassadors for another year. We would like to thank Kathleen and Max for their contributions and are excited for them to continue their contributions post pilot.

[2510 Grant] Timelock and Multisig Governance tool for Rootstock - Milestone 1

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund the development of two security tools for Governance. The funding request is reasonable and the team is experienced in the Rootstock ecosystem therefore we are happy to support this proposal.

[2508 Grant] Infrastructure Ventures Path to Ecosystem Growth

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: For
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to fund an accelerator program. We appreciate the team responding to all questions and revising the proposal based on feedback. We are eager to see traction and will keep an eye on KPIs and reporting to assess the success of this program.
7

[2510 Grant] Zerem Finance - Real World Asset (RWA) lending aggregator

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal to fund an RWA platform focused on residential real estate. We are supportive of the project and would like to see the founders continue building and integrating with Rootstock protocols. That said, the 20k budget for Milestone 1 is higher than the typical 10k threshold. We voted against only because we would like to see the M1 budget revised down to 10k.

[2510 Grant] [[2507 Grant Proposal] Rootstock QuestHub]

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: Against
  3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal to fund Milestone 4 for Vottun’s Rootstock Questhub app. After reviewing the website, it looks like like it still need to be updated and polished for M3 to be considered complete, before requesting funding for M4. In its current state, we have voted against, but hope the team will make the necessary changes and then resubmit the proposal.

[Grant 2511] Recognized Delegate Compensation - October 2025

  1. Proposal: Link
  2. Vote: FOR
  3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal to make delegate compensation payments to the delegates who qualified in October. We are supportive of this program as it strengthens governance by rewarding delegates who make consistent and meaningful contributions.