DAOstar Delegate Thread (rev)

Delegate Platforms
1

Delegate Profile

Name: DAOstar

RSK Address for Delegation: 0x27538B3398880e3F407149ff551827c4962a6801
RNS: daostar.rsk

Contact / Social Links:

About

DAOstar is dedicated to supporting the long-term success and sustainability of the DAO ecosystem by:

  • Developing technical standards, interoperable infrastructure, and public goods
  • Sharing insights on DAOs and decentralized governance through open-source research
  • Creating a communal forum for DAO builders and fostering collective innovation

DAOstar is a 100% public good, nonprofit, no-token project, supported by many amazing projects and organizations, including Optimism, Arbitrum, ENS, Tally, Agora, and the Ethereum Foundation, among others.

Goal / Vision

By partnering with the Rootstock community, we will look to bring our expertise in DAO ecosystem security, grant program management, and governance best practices, in order to create a strong foundation on which the Collective can grow and thrive.

We believe that in order to succeed, DAOs need to maximize their shared impact through collaboration as well as competition. Through our participation as a Rootstock delegate, we hope to promote decentralized governance and open, collaborative research and development for the Bitcoin DeFi ecosystem.

Disclosures

DAOstar is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and trust within the Rootstock ecosystem. In cases where a conflict of interest arises, we are dedicated to full transparency and proactive disclosure. We will clearly identify any relevant conflicts within our voting rationales and, where necessary, abstain from voting.

Waiver of Liability

By delegating to DAOstar, you acknowledge and agree that DAOstar will participate on a best-efforts basis and will not be liable for any direct or indirect losses, damages, or claims arising from its participation in the Rootstock Collective, its governance activities, or its protocol/products.

(Updated profile for DAOstar governance team as of 01/15/2026).

1 Like
DAOstar Delegate Thread
Rootstock Collective Governance-at-a-Glance 26-01-29
2

Proposal: [2507 Grant Proposal] Rootstock QuestHub - Milestone 4

Voted: For

Rational: We voted in favor of this proposal, even though we did not participate in the initial discourse for M1-3, we have reviewed all the comments, including the UX/UI user experience issues that have not been optimal. We appreciate the project team’s resolution to work with the delegates regarding their concerns to address and fix these issues. Therefore, we support this proposal and agree that deploying it to the user community to provide their feedback and polish to the UI, is the right course forward.

3

Proposal: [Grant 2601] Recognized Delegate Compensation - December 2025;December 2025 was the 3rd month of payment of our newest program: Recognized Delegate Compensation!

Voted: For

Rational: We voted in support of the December 2025 delegate recognized compensation after careful review of the program from inception which we view as an effective governance tool. The introduction in December of the Joker mechanism and 30-day read window are constructive refinements that balance accountability with openness—measuring recent, meaningful participation without creating rigidity or delegate lock-in.

4

Proposal: [2512 Grant 1] RootStock Global Wallet by Blockscout- Milestone 1
Voted: For

Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal on the basis that:

  • It represents a bounded Milestone 1 step aligned with one of Rootstock’s stated outcome goals for funded projects, boosting adoption.

  • Addressing onboarding and UX friction supports diversification of the user base and responds to a sector-wide constraint to increased transaction activity.

  • The team demonstrated diligence and responsiveness by incorporating constructive delegate feedback, resulting in a refined scope, reduced costs, and clearer milestone structure.

  • Tracking the outcomes of this proposal provides a foundation to measure user acquisition and retention dynamics, including cost per onboarded user, informing the evaluation of future growth initiatives.

5

Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone 1;SwaptoX is an existing product that has been live on Base for over four months.

Voted: Against

Rationale: The proposal was advanced to a vote without meeting the KYC requirement in the Grant Guidelines. This lack of basic compliance raised additional concerns around the credibility, track record, and execution capacity of a solo builder- including key-person and continuity risk.

The proposal placed weight on a prior deployment on Base as a proof point, yet provided no supporting data to assess performance or outcomes versus plan. Finally, Milestone 1 insufficiently mitigates the technical and delivery risks perceived.

6

Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration - Milestone 2

Voted: Against

Rational: We voted against this proposal as the inconsistencies from the original proposal in October and the updated M1 deliverables in January for the milestone budget requested (~1K). Secondly, the status updates not posted for three months, leads us to not support this proposal for M1 funding until a detailed proactive communications plan is proposed by the project authors to provide regular updates for a project for this amount.

7

Proposal: [2508 Grant Proposal] All-or-Nothing Crowdfunding with Rootstock - Milestone 3

Voted: For

Rationale: Milestones 1 and 2 establish a solid foundation and set a good precedent for supporting the Milestone 3 request.
The team’s effort to enable follow-up and transparency through an impact dashboard adds credibility.

Milestone 3 funding aligns with the Rootstock Grants Program objectives of promoting adoption.

8

Proposal: [2601 Grant] Loan interest return to boost bitcoin-backed circular economies - Milestone 1

Voted: Against

Rational: We voted against this proposal for several reasons and most importantly, the lack of understanding of the actual direct impact for Rootstock, as well as confusion of the actual grant allocation in the budget for operations, marketing, etc. While we are in general support this pilot project, we are unsure without detailed thoughts from the proposal author of how much impact this project will actually have. While we appreciate the author’s response to the Foundation, the TVL and Revenue generation does not appear completed flushed out. As noted in our comment thread on this proposal, if this proposal for M1 does pass, we will probably vote “against” for future milestones, unless there are more details and clarification provided.

9

Proposal: [Grant 2602] Recognized Delegate Compensation - January 2026

Voted: For

Rationale: Approved delegate compensation for January activity under the Recognized Delegate Compensation Program, based on published activity reports which demonstrate compliance with and alignment to the announced criteria.

10

Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone 1

Voted: Against

Rationale: Appreciate the responsiveness; nonetheless, perceived inconsistencies remain and generate concerns which M1 does not mitigate. The grant proposal was initially presented as a deployed solution on Base, later described by the grantee as not yet mature. Solo developer capacity combined with insufficient diligence in the grant request process (KYC mishap requiring vote resubmission and current M1 specificity) raise execution concerns.

11

Proposal: [2510] Grant Proposal - Self Sovereign Identity (SSI) sandbox rootstock integration - Milestone 2

Voted: For

Rational: We voted in favor for this proposal, as the project author has demonstrated both a clarity of their milestone 2 deliverables and budget as per our request, but also have been very proactive in increasing their communications with the delegates.

12

@DAOstar_gov

Thank you for providing your rationale for voting against the proposal. I appreciate the professional nature of your previous questions regarding our data on Base, as well as our strategy and roadmap.

However, I believe the reasons provided in your rationale are insufficient, and I would like to clarify the following:

1. On the “Inconsistency” of Product Maturity There is no conflict between the proven exchange functionality of SwaptoX on Base and the fact that the overall product is not yet fully “mature.” For instance, we have not yet developed comprehensive documentation; as such, it would be premature to claim the product is complete. This is similar to Rootstock: while its BTC technology is highly mature after years of operation, its ecosystem is still undergoing major development. Could one then describe Rootstock as “immature”? The core technology is ready, but the peripheral infrastructure is still being built. Both are objective facts.

2. On the KYC Process As my KYC has now been officially approved, I have already acknowledged the oversight and offered my apologies. I do not wish to dwell further on this administrative friction, as everyone can make mistakes during a complex process. The important fact is that this requirement has been fully satisfied.

3. On Solo Developer Risk The Rootstock grant program explicitly supports individual developers. From initial R&D to full deployment, I have dedicated over a year to this project. The fact that it has been running stably for 5 months proves its technical viability. If this track record still suggests a “high risk,” I must ask: what criteria would a solo developer need to meet to be considered “low risk” in your view?

I look forward to your sincere response.

13

Proposal: [2510 Grant] Zerem Finance - Real World Asset (RWA) - Milestone 2 - Lemon Integration

Voted: For

Rational: We voted in favor of this M2 proposal, as the author has demonstrated clarity regarding the integration partnership with Lemon and to maintain the momentum of this high-potential distribution deal. However, we want to note that our support for Milestone 3 is contingent on a transparent audit of the budget. We must ensure that the efficiencies gained through this new partnership are passed back to the DAO treasury in the form of a re-scoped and cost-optimized M3. We included more details regarding this concerns in the proposal forum thread.

14

Proposal: [2508 Grant] Infrastructure VenturesPath to Ecosystem Growth-M3

Voted: For

Rationale: M1 and M2 reflect thorough effort and a clear attempt to document progress in transparently. It signals disciplined execution and reinforces credibility in the program’s delivery.

M3 moves into measurable ecosystem impact, building on the groundwork established thus far. Transitioning to deployment and verifiable on-chain outcomes is a meaningful progression, and we consider advancement to this phase to be justified.

15

Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone 1V2.1 Proposal;Milestone 1 – SwaptoX Deployment on Rootstock (1 Month)

Voted: For

Rationale:
Clarity on concurrent grants There was confirmation of no concurrent milestone commitments and that any future grants would have clearly separated scope and budget. As this is a solo founder, that transparency is appreciated and important to have as part of the public forum record.

Milestone 3 in V2.1 replaces the prior open-ended deliverable with a growth and impact milestone that includes defined KPIs, a clearer budget, and independent verification via Dune Analytics.

1 Like
16

Proposal: [Grant 2603] Recognized Delegate Compensation - February 2026;Here are February’s top engaged delegates:

Voted: For

Rationale: This proposal pays delegates based on transparent, pre-established engagement metrics — with room for reasonable, transparent exemptions when circumstances require it.

17

Proposal: [2603] Beexo BTCFi Grant – Criptovendimia 2026;Sponsorship Leverage

Voted: Against

Rational: We voted against this proposal for two main reasonings: 1) While there was a focus on the “at event” activities which we believe were well thought out, the follow-through in the 60 days after the event were not defined with a clear execution plan, GTM, follow through and success tactics to meet goals; and 2) This event in our opinion is a very heavily favored towards Beexo for potential new apps built using their wallet vs. a very heavy financial commitment (Rootstock to pay for the sponsorship costs ($10K) + an extra $2.5K in Builder rewards). We do acknowledge that Beexo will also be providing engineering staff and addtional builder rewards, however, this amount was not disclosed by the proposal authors, and it’s unknown if this a 50/50 commitment. For additional details of our concerns and rational, see this comment on the proposal.

18

Proposal: [2603 Grant Proposal] Rootstock Buildathon Track and Sponsorship at IpĂȘ Village 2026

Voted: Against

Rational: We voted against this proposal for two main reasons which fall into financial and strategic concerns for this grant proposal: 1) Our main concern remains focused on the strategic vacuum of isolated sponsorships. We still believe that we must prioritize a unified strategic framework that allows us to benchmark these opportunities against one another before committing further funds. As we noted in our Forum comments, this proposal reinforces the need to have an understanding of what are the Collective + Labs goals are, and how events align to these goals. Currently, without this understanding and alignment, then delegates are just voting in a vacuum on grants without an understanding of our end goals. And 2) Our view is simply one of focused prioritization (and especially in this current lean bear market), we believe every possible dollar should be skewed toward the developers building the actual protocol utility, rather than events sponsorship, which are hard to measure long term ROI. We believe that the Collective needs to focus on grants that provide long-term growth (and longivity) for the protocol, and events sponsorship (and participation in) while are great for branding and awareness, it’s not a direct-funnel lead generator for revenue.

Additional Contributions from Delegates (A Discussion Thread)
19

Proposal: Rootstock BTCFi Onboarding & Builder Activation — CryptoVendimIA 2026 (Updated Proposal)

Voted: Against

Rational: We again voted against this (revised) proposal. While we are encouraged by the proposal authors refining this proposal to incorporate a more balanced contribution for Rootstock and Beexo, the current timeline presents a fundamental barrier for a successfully executed event.

With the event beginning on March 25th, the proposal and subsequent queue time for execution will conclude after the conference has already started. Approving funding for an event that is underway is an impractical approach for a treasury management perspective, and creates a retroactive funding model rather than a proactive sponsorship. To maintain a high standard for grant proposals, we believe it is best to look at this as a sponsorship opportunity for next year. This would allow for a properly scheduled, well-integrated collaboration that reflects not only a successful sponsorship for Rootstock, but also an aligned partnership with Beexo and most importantly, a great experience for the builders!

20

Proposal: [2603] Rootstock India - Milestone 1

Voted: Against

Rational: We voted against this proposal, due to the author posting this proposal on March 20 , which did not include (or allow) for any delegate discussions, and then the author posted the proposal for an on-chain vote 24 hours later, on March 21st. This rapid publication of the proposal for an on-chain vote does not allow for any delegate discussions with the author and has been rushed to an on-chain vote, as well as being submitted over a weekend. As we noted in our comments on the proposal , that we added after our vote, we also haven’t been afforded a full opportunity to review the proposal before the vote.