Proposal: [1304 Grant Proposal] TYKORA Prize Vaults for DoC & USDRIF (Tropykus Yield) | JXLabs - M1
Vote: For
Rationale:
1 Like
Proposal: [2603 Grant] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Vote: Against
Rationale: We decided to vote against this proposal, not because we believe Relay isnât impactful, but precisely because it is. Given its potential to be widely adopted across the ecosystem, we think itâs important to be especially careful, as any flaws or gaps could propagate broadly if integrated by multiple projects.
The team hasnât built on Rootstock before, although the team has worked on similar tooling for other, less complex protocols. Because of that, our concern is not really about general capability but more about ecosystem-specific execution risk. For something that could become foundational infrastructure, we think having prior experience within the Rootstock ecosystem is quite important.
Proposal: [Revised Scope] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Vote: Against
Rationale: While we appreciate the rescope that directly reduces the risk of issues propagating if Relay becomes standardized across the ecosystem, we do not think rushing to vote immediately while the previous version is still active is a good practice for governance, since delegates need time to properly review and the discussion process itself is important.
And there is still some uncertainty regarding the actual demand. While Relay integration is described as a pain point, as we mentioned in the thread it still feels more like an assumption at this stage, since there is no clear supporting evidence that projects are actually struggling with this complexity in practice and would need a tool like this.
Proposal: Blockscout Global Wallet - Milestone 2
Vote: For
Rationale: @AndrewG We appreciate the transparency in acknowledging that some deliverables fell short due to external factors beyond the teamâs control. Reducing the budget for Milestones 2 and 3 is a reasonable adjustment, especially considering the team is already operating at a loss while still demonstrating commitment to delivering the remaining scope.
Proposal: [Grant 0705] Recognized Delegate Compensation - April 2026
Vote: For
Rationale: We appreciate @Raphael_Anode for making adjustments to the metrics and for the transparency around the decision to support delegates who are genuinely contributing. We support the continuation of the Recognized Delegate compensation program, as it plays an important role in ensuring funds are allocated more efficiently.
Proposal: [RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal â Multi-Ambassador Extension M1 & M2
Vote: For
Rationale: While we acknowledge the concerns raised by other delegates regarding the KPI around onboarding stakers not being fully met as initially intended, we believe it is more constructive to continue adjusting the program along the way, with @Georgia already actively coordinating with the ambassadors and working to address those concerns, rather than pausing it entirely, which could ultimately create more downside than benefit.
The ambassadors responsibilities are not limited to attracting stakers alone. Their role also includes creating content, engaging with the community, increasing awareness, and hosting local activities, etc. Continuing the program would allow ambassadors to maintain the momentum and relationships they have already built with their local communities. We also think the value of ambassador programs extends beyond a single metric, since their long-term goal is to help expand Rootstockâs presence and strengthen connections with local communities. Therefore, pausing the program at this stage could risk losing that momentum and potentially reduce community engagement overall.
Proposal: RBTC Onboarding EventKit
Vote: Against
Rationale: Weâre voting against this proposal. The team has genuinely tried to validate demand as we requested, and we appreciate that. But itâs still not substantial enough and for developer tooling like this, demand is everything. The problem youâre trying to solve is real, but a tool only creates value if teams actually adopt it. Without verified commitments from real integrators, we canât justify the treasury spend.
Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al
Vote: Against
Rationale: Weâre not against the proposal itself, but there is currently a technical frontend issue preventing the project from selecting Milestone 4 in the submission process. The Rootstock team is already aware of the issue and is working on a fix, which is expected around next week.
Proposal: [2508 Grant] M4 Infrastructure Ventures Path to Ecosystem Growth
Vote: Against
Rationale: Truly appreciate your work @Francisco and the level of transparency in the milestone update. As we mentioned earlier in our review:
With that in mind, looking at the two remaining active projects, we have concerns about whether the M4 tranche is justified at this stage.
The amount being requested and the GTM plan donât match. $15,000 is a significant ask under the new grant framework, and whatâs been shared is primarily a set of social announcements, a gov forum post, tweets, and an internal Slack note. Thereâs no user acquisition strategy, no distribution plan, and no Rootstock-specific partnership activation. That doesnât meet the bar.
The targets are also difficult to take at face value. SuperStake set a goal of 200K+ transactions and $300K+ volume within 2.5 months. Current actuals are 31 transactions, 8 wallets, and ~$1K in volume. The gap is wide enough that weâd expect a concrete plan explaining how it gets closed, not just an aspiration.
On Peach Bitcoin, we still have no data on how users are actually choosing Rootstock as a rail versus Bitcoin mainnet or Liquid Network. That question remains unanswered.
Given all of this, weâre not in a position to support the M4 tranche at this point.
1 Like
Proposal: [Grant 0806] Recognized Delegate Compensation - May 2026
Vote: For
Rationale: While we continue to support the Recognized Delegate Compensation program as it reflects on actual contribution, weâre still looking forward to a clarification on the eligibility criteria. The criteria in the update appears to differ from the conclusion that came out of the delegate discussion and voting, which means the May results would look different if the eligibility criteria in the update were applied.
Proposal: Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and alpha launch
Vote: For
Rationale: Since the frontend issue has been resolved and the proposal resubmitted under the correct milestone label, weâre in favor of supporting Milestone 4. We appreciate the teamâs responsiveness throughout the review process. Every issue flagged by delegates was resolved promptly and verified, and the team has shown a consistent level of cooperation throughout.