Introduce the BTC Vault (Sandbox Mode) on the RootstockCollective dApp
Vote: For
Rationale: Zero cost to the DAO, fully sandboxed by RootstockLabs, and it targets a real gap in rBTC utility. No reason to block this. @Ignas asks the right question about defining success metrics before this moves toward production. Having that framework early will make the next governance decision much cleaner.
1 Like
[2603 Grant] Updated: Bitcoin India Tour Phase-3 X Rootstock India
Voted: FOR
Rationale: I acknowledge the issues my colleagues flagged around soft KPIs, lack of Rootstock-specific content, and unclear impact measurement. That said, looking at the updated proposal, I think the team’s operational track record across 76+ events speaks clearly to execution ability. A lot of the presentation materials, marketing collateral, and Rootstock-specific content can be developed after a proposal is approved.
At $3,000 for Milestone 1 targeting 15 events and 2,500+ attendees, this is a low-risk starting point. Continuation toward the full $15,000 via Milestone 2 would be entirely contingent on M1 results, which is exactly how milestone-based grants should work.
I’d encourage the OP to engage further with delegates, address the feedback, and consider resubmitting a refined version focused on an MVP scope around Milestone 1. And I encourage the other delegates to consider if $3000 is not a good risk adjusted MVP to obtain results and decide if it’s worth further disbursements.
[2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration - Milestone 3
Voted: FOR
Rationale: M2 was delivered thoroughly. Clean external audit from CoinFabrik with all findings resolved, additional fuzz testing beyond scope, and a 19% gas cost reduction through batching. The team has consistently exceeded expectations across milestones. $4,000 for 2 months to bring this to mainnet is reasonable and well-earned.
[2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al
Voted: AGAINST
Rationale: Duplicate proposal submitted by accident.
[2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator - Milestone 2
Voted: FOR
Rationale: M1 deliverables are complete and the team was responsive to delegate feedback. Split routing is now prioritized, Router admin functions are moving behind multisig with timelock, and a formal audit plan is scoped for M3. $6,000 for this scope is reasonable, and the accountability mechanisms like the public comparison page and fee lock until 2028 add confidence. Looking forward to seeing the audit plan details in M3.
I supported the first proposal as well, which failed. Thus I’m very happy to see this moving forward, the builder delivering results, and the community supporting.
1 Like
[Grant 2604] Recognized Delegate Compensation - March 2026
Voted: FOR
Rationale: Compensation reflects the parameters of the recognized delegates program and the activity transparently tracked by Anode team. Happy to support continued contributions from active delegates.
[1304 Grant Proposal] TYKORA Prize Vaults for DoC & USDRIF (Tropykus Yield) | JXLabs - M1
Voted: FOR
Rationale: @JXLabs is the team behind BΔLT, delivering ahead of schedule, passing a Coinspect audit, and building actual history on Rootstock.
The behavioral thesis behind Tykora also holds up. Humans chase variance and upside over expected value, and a weekly prize pool has genuine potential to create the kind of self-reinforcing loop that pulls TVL somewhere interesting.
Cold start remains the real risk, but the team’s execution record gives me enough confidence they can push through the chasm and reach meaningful TVL.
1 Like
[2603 Grant] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Voted: Against
Rationale: The integration friction RelayDevKit targets is real and the scope is reasonably structured, but this is exactly the type of tool where trust surface outweighs scope. The package is designed to sit inside other teams’ CI pipelines and npm dependency trees, which means any weakness, abandonment, or malicious change propagates downstream into every wallet or dApp that integrates it.
Other delegates have flagged the vulnerability propagation risk and I share it. I’d add that infrastructure sitting this close to other builders’ trust boundaries should come from teams with either demonstrated Rootstock shipping history or explicit review from a known maintainer, and neither is present here. The team’s prior work is entirely off Rootstock and consists of small standalone utilities rather than infrastructure other teams depend on. The 30-day bugfix window is also too short for something intended to be durable dev tooling. Funding this at this trust bar and with this maintenance envelope creates more downside risk than the $9,660 headline suggests.
1 Like
[Revised Scope] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Voted: Against
Rationale: My earlier concerns on systemic security and team accountability have both been addressed. What hasn’t is the return on this investment. As @Curia has asked more than once, it’s unclear whether Relay integration setup is a bottleneck builders are hitting today. No LOIs, no survey signal, no named teams waiting to adopt. $9,660 plus $1,800 in maintenance is a meaningful slice of treasury that would need to displace projects with more validated demand. More detailed in my forum reply:
Blockscout Global Wallet - Milestone 2
Voted: FOR
Rationale: The 12.6% retention rate sits comfortably within Blockscout’s own 10-15% target, and the measurement discipline behind that number stands out as much as the result itself. Tracking acquisition cost, return sessions, and DApp engagement at this level of granularity gives the ecosystem a baseline it didn’t really have before, and the reporting framework is solid enough to keep generating useful signal well beyond this grant.
Other delegates have raised fair concerns on partial KPI delivery, particularly around the DApp integration target and the gas sponsorship that didn’t materialize. Those concerns are valid on the merits, but builders rarely make it through first contact with the market with their original plan intact, and what matters more is how a team responds when assumptions break. Blockscout absorbed the Dynamic infrastructure cost, reduced the M2 ask once Gelato sunset their program, and reframed M3 around testing whether gas sponsorship actually moves retention instead of padding the budget. Measuring well and pivoting fast tends to compound better than trying to nail the original plan on the first attempt.
In light of all of this, the $3,500 ask feels appropriate to move the project forward. The Tropykus testnet integration is also more meaningful than a “one production DApp” line item suggests, given Tropykus’ position in the Rootstock DeFi stack, and getting that path to mainnet is the right next step. Supporting M2 at the reduced amount and reevaluating against the M3 results makes sense, and the data this team is generating along the way is exactly what the ecosystem needs to make better grant decisions going forward.
[RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal – Multi-Ambassador Extension M1 & M2
Voted: FOR
Rationale: This was not a trivial decision. The concerns raised by other delegates around KPI quality and the weight assigned to staking conversion are legitimate, and we share them in principle. Two considerations tipped us toward supporting the extension.
First, judging an ambassador program primarily through staking conversion underweights what these roles actually produce. Both ambassadors delivered consistent content output, ran local activations, and brought hundreds of people into direct contact with Rootstock through universities, meetups, and Spaces. Retail adoption on a Bitcoin L2 is rarely a quarterly outcome. It compounds through repeated exposure, localized education, and on-the-ground presence that won’t show up in a staking chart for several cycles. Weighting effort and reach alongside short-term financial metrics gives a more honest picture of what this program is meant to do.
Second, a DAO benefits from allowing small focused workflows to operate with some degree of centralized coordination, rather than subjecting every initiative to fully distributed decision-making at every step. @Georgia is actively backing this renewal, has been engaging with delegates to address specific concerns, and has communicated clear plans to tighten the metrics framework for the next cycle. That is enough for us to extend trust here, with the expectation that the next reporting cycle reflects those improvements.
We are voting FOR with the understanding that the bar moves up from here.
[Grant 0705] Recognized Delegate Compensation - April 2026
Voted: For
Rationale: The monthly compensation program continues to reward the kind of consistent, substantive work that keeps proposal review rigorous. Paying delegates for rationales and scrutiny is a fair way to sustain the level of engagement this DAO needs.
RBTC Onboarding EventKit
Voted: Against
Rationale: The current grant environment calls for a higher bar on demonstrated ROI, and this proposal isn’t quite there yet. The core idea is reasonable, and the team has shown genuine responsiveness to feedback throughout the process.
That said, interest from potential integrators that stops short of any committed adoption is a thin foundation for a treasury allocation. Stronger demand validation would go a long way, and I’d be open to reconsidering if that picture changes.
[2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al
Voted: Abstain
Rationale: A fix is being pushed into the dApp regarding proper milestones management so that the proposal can be resubmitted.
[2508 Grant] M4 Infrastructure Ventures Path to Ecosystem Growth
Voted: Against
Rationale: We appreciate @Francisco, Infrastructure Ventures’ and Eccentric Labs’ work. What we’re seeing is it’s currently very challenging to gain momentum anywhere in the crypto space (maybe except on perps and Hyperliquid).
There are claims of a 56% reduction in developers in crypto in the past year, 75% reduction in github commits related to crypto. Not sure if this is accurate but it’s exactly what we’re seeing from our point of view as well. Even in crypto builder focused events, it seems half of the people are actually more interested into agentic AI.
We don’t contest the quality of Francisco/IV/Eccentric Labs’ work, but with the current momentum demonstrated by this initiative, and the increased care on giving away grants, we cannot justify investing another $15.000 currently.
[Grant 0806] Recognized Delegate Compensation - May 2026
Voted: For
Rationale: Supporting the May results and the move to the new scheme. Replacing the hard cutoff with a gated and tapered distribution removes the all-or-nothing dynamics that invite gaming and keeps marginal effort rewarded through the rough weeks. The right direction, and I am comfortable moving forward.
Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and alpha launch
Voted: For
Rationale: This team has built a consistent delivery record across the prior milestones, and Milestone 3 came in ahead of schedule with the Issuer and Validator APKs operational on Mainnet, exceeding the original scope.
The governance portal was recently fixed to accommodate Milestone 4, so the procedural blocker that held this up is resolved and the approval is now due.