Proposal: Introduce the BTC Vault (Sandbox Mode) on the RootstockCollective dApp
Voted: For
Rational: We voted in a favor for this proposal, as it’s a low risk, that provide a great potential for the Rootstock Dapp, and with no cost (other than a symbolic 1 USDRIF). We are excited that RTLabs continues to build out the funtionality and use of the RT Dapp for a potential rBTC yield to the treasury, and improves the use case of rBTC.
Proposal: [2603] Introduce a 90% Maximum Allocation to Backers to Ensure Builders Retain Meaningful Rewards
Voted: FOR
Rationale: Even without clear data on how frequently extreme allocations occur, introducing a simple constraint to preserve builder upside seems reasonable. Misaligned incentives at the margins can have outsized effects on both participation and outcomes.
That said, this should be revisited over time with better data, to ensure we’re iterating in a way that remains both effective and proportionate.
Proposal:[Grant 2604] Recognized Delegate Compensation - March 2026
Voted: For
Rational: The Delegate compensation rewards continue to recognize delegates who are strengthening governance with proactive engagement to ensure that treasury funds are measurable, accountable and provide the most impact.
Proposal: [2603 Grant] Updated: Bitcoin India Tour Phase-3 X Rootstock India
Voted: Against
Rationale: While the initiative may be promising, there is limited clarity on sponsor positioning and overall strategy at the proposed scale. It is unclear how Rootstock’s presence would be maintained across events with potential co-sponsors.
Additionally, the path to measurable impact for Rootstock adoption is not well defined. The proposal lacked granularity on how airtime and content would translate into specific actions — whether driving developer onboarding or end-user engagement — as the current format appears more geared toward awareness.
Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration - Milestone 3
Vote: For
Rational: We voted in favor of this proposal, as the proposal author have exceeded Milestone 2 requirements by delivering an enterprise-grade security suite, including a clean professional audit and over 59,000 automated stress tests. Their commitment to operational transparency through real-time monitoring and gas-optimized batching provides the necessary confidence for a secure Mainnet launch. We support the funding of Milestone 3 based upon the team’s technical rigour and their proactive approach to Rootstock’s security standards. We also voted against the duplicate proposal that was posted mistakenly by the author for governance clarity. Full details of our voting reasoning can be seen on the forum proposal.
Appreciate your feedback @DAOstar_gov. I think this is a great assumption to validate on Thursday’s call with RLabs events manager. I will link it in the Additional Contributions from Delegates thread and also add it to the Rootie_Bot agent database so we can track the assumption as it evolves.
Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone2
Voted: For
Rationale:
M1 completion was well documented, with verified on-chain transactions, public contract addresses, a demo video, and 44 supported tokens exceeding the 30-token target.
M2 has gone through multiple iterations as a result of transparency in the M1 completion report and to delegate feedback (split routing and contract security).
The revised scope is more technically robust than the original, though the total grant cost will now exceed the initial $15,000. It does seem a worthwhile trade-off.
Proposal: [1304 Grant Proposal] TYKORA Prize Vaults for DoC & USDRIF (Tropykus Yield) | JXLabs - M1
Voted: FOR
Rationale:
@jxlabs was highly responsive to delegate feedback, incorporating concrete safeguards around draw liveness, manual intervention, and transparency into measurable operational commitments.
Importantly, beyond TVL, the inclusion of qualitative user feedback in Milestone 3 provides valuable insight into consumer engagement on Rootstock.
Proposal: [2603 Grant] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Voted: Against
Rationale:
The problem the RelayDevKit aims to solve is valid, but there are material concerns around verifiability of the team’s stated track record. The proposal cites multiple repositories as evidence of execution; however, these are hosted under a personal GitHub account (Supercoolkayy) with no clear attribution to the collective DappsoverApps, which itself lists its GitHub as “N/A” in this proposal.
Without a centralized organizational repository, there is little assurance that the project’s intellectual property, commit history, or future maintenance will be tied to a stable collective entity rather than a single individual’s personal workspace. This represents an execution and continuity risk.
Proposal: [Revised Scope] RelayDevKit - Milestone 1
Voted: Against
Rationale:
The revised proposal was published before the prior vote had concluded, which introduced unnecessary confusion in the review process and detracted further from overall confidence in the submission.
I remain concerned around team accountability.
Ownership within the collective structure is descriptive but it is unclear regarding a defined entity with clear accountability if team members change. KYC verifies identity for disbursement, not responsibility post-grant.
Prior work appears tied to individual contributions rather than a cohesive team track record.
Proposal: Blockscout Global Wallet - Milestone 2
Voted: FOR
Rationale:
Blockscout completed the explorer integration and delivered 1,694 total users with 213 returning — roughly 12.6% retention, which lands within their own 10-15% target.
Given the partial completion of the 1+ production DApp integration, it is reasonable to reduce the ask accordingly following Gelato’s discontinuation of gas sponsorship services.
The Tropykus testnet integration is a first step toward real dapp adoption, and M3 objectives and funding requests will warrant close scrutiny.
The team is absorbing losses on the Dynamic infrastructure costs rather than padding the ask, which builds confidence.
The retention number looks modest in absolute terms but the more important signal is that this team is measuring and reporting it transparently. Understanding acquisition and retention costs is foundational for the ecosystem, and Blockscout is generating that data credibly given their existing position running the explorer.
Proposal:[Grant 0705] Recognized Delegate Compensation - April 2026
Voted: For
Rational: The Recognized Delegate Compensation program continues to evolve, incentivizing delegates who provide the thoughtful guidance and dedication necessary to ensure only the highest-quality proposals are funded.
Proposal: [RootstockCollective Ambassador Proposal] Renewal Proposal – Multi-Ambassador Extension M1 & M2
Voted: FOR
Rationale:
First, the forum thread showed that this is early stage brand awareness work. It is a bit soon to prescribe exact KPIs or the ultimate objective as the data to calibrate what is needed is still limited. We place importance on disciplined, transparent reporting of activities and learnings, so the DAO can build toward better outcome definition over time. The discussions in this thread are exactly that process working.
Second, in the spirit of the ordinary business exclusion — we are cautious about micromanaging a valued operational program where there is a dedicated coordinator. There has been meaningful engagement with delegate concerns throughout this thread. That trust comes with an expectation: a proper accountability process, transparent reporting, and visible progress on the measurement improvements discussed here.
Proposal: [2604 Grant] RBTC Onboarding EventKit
Voted: Against
Rationale:
The decision was informed by the increased scrutiny called for in the V3.2 guidelines.
It is worth acknowledging the positive elements: EventKit falls within a Core Priority Sector (Developer Tooling & SDKs / Infrastructure & Protocol Integrations), and the team was responsive and adapted throughout the review process.
However, we do not see sufficient alignment with any of the six 2026 Strategic Themes for grants.
Specifically, two high-weight primary filters are not sufficiently met: the ROI path is not adequately articulated, and measurability of outcomes remains soft and off-chain. Proposed impact metrics — such as teams reviewing and testing the SDK, public PRs, and sample integrations — are not aligned with the FES framework, which requires verifiable on-chain activity.
The deeper concern is demand, which was raised early in the review and was never convincingly answered. The ROI case is one degree removed at best — and that only holds should demand have been substantiated.
Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and al
Voted: For
Rational: With their strong delivery outcomes on their Milestone 3 report and their excellent work to date, including the exceeding the original proposal goals by delivering the Issuer and Validator APKs fully operational on Mainnet ahead of schedule. This team has gone above and beyond their original commitments and shown great proactive development, and a strong progression of this project. We also provided more feedback to the author on the Forum.
Updated note: Due to a front-end limitation of the Rootstock Dapp which occured for this on-chain vote, it did not allow for the selection of Milestone 4, and therefore this grant title was identified as funding for Milestone 3, however the intent of the grant author was for funding of Milestone 4. The Rootstock team acknowledged that the Dapp front-end had this issue, and it will be corrected within a week.
Therefore, this Milestone 4 grant funding request will be re-published for a correction vote (upon the correction of the Dapp is completed). We had voted “for” this current version of this grant milestone, and unfortunatey had misread the title. However, we will vote “For” again, once the correct Milestone 4 grant is published for an on-chain vote.
Proposal: [2508 Grant] M4 Infrastructure Ventures Path to Ecosystem Growth
Voted: Against
Rationale:
Voting against, while recognizing the effort throughout the program.
That said, the gap between the process outlined, the deliverables committed to, and the quality of documentation shared has widened over time. As funds deployed increase, outcomes naturally come under greater scrutiny.
For us, the central issue is that M3 treasury strategies were never fully completed. These were a prerequisite for M4, not a parallel workstream. Without solid documented treasury strategies, we don’t see a clear path to $500K TVL for Rootstock, even allowing for a reasonable deviation from the promised 6-month timeframe.
Proposal: May 2026 - Delegate Compensation Results & New Programme Launch!
Vote: FOR
Rationale:
Voting in favor of exploring a new compensation mechanism. Detected weaknesses in the former scheme warranted a redesign. That said, a new compensation scheme alone may not be sufficient to curb unwanted cultural behaviors such as a willingness to game the system — that is a deeper problem that structural tweaks cannot fully solve.
We vote in favor with one explicit note: this change does not alter our own approach. We remain committed to striving to be a top contributor regardless of the economic incentive structure.
We also note that in evaluating the impact of this change , it cannot be considered in isolation, but rather as part of a system. Two significant contextual shifts are happening simultaneously: total delegate compensation has been cut by 50%, and new grant guidelines have been published. These changes may materially shape delegate activity and the nature of governance work going forward.
Proposal: Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration, maturity and alpha launch
Voted: For
Rational: This grant proposal was reposted by the author after the front-end corrections of adding the selection of Milestone 4 were completed. We had previously voted “in favor” of this proposal, eventhough the incorrect Milestone (M3) was listed (due to the front-end dapp limitations). As we noted in our earlier voting rational this continues to be a strongly executed and delivery team that demonstrates viable results, and therefore, we have voted “in favor” to support continued funding for Milestone 4.
Proposal: [Grant 0907] Recognized Delegate Compensation - June 2026
Voted: For
Rational: As the delegate compensation rewards program continues to evolve, based upon current Collective activity and base line activity from the the delegates, we hope that this program will continue to enhance to provide greater measurable value. We voted in favor of this proposal, as it continues to recognize and reward delegates who are dedicated to the ensuring that governance is objective and balanced.
Proposal: Update OpenOcean Builder Reward Receiver Address
Voted: FOR
Rationale:
Voted for the routine administrative update. It is not a funding request. OpenOcean is redirecting its existing Builder reward payments to a new wallet. No changes to reward terms or amounts.