This is a major step forward in providing greater predictability and objectivity to the framework, both for applicants seeking grants and for the DAO when evaluating them.
However, we do have some questions and observations.
Among the high-priority sectors listed are:
- Infrastructure & Protocol Integrations
- Developer Tooling & SDKs
- Analytics, Dashboards & Data Infrastructure
All of these verticals are clearly strategic and high-priority for the ecosystem. However, the ROI of these types of products cannot be properly measured solely through traditional metrics such as TVL, new wallets / unique users, transaction volume generated, or DAO engagement.
The impact of these initiatives tends to manifest in different ways. For example:
- In the case of developer tooling or SDKs, impact could be measured through metrics such as how many developers integrated or actively used the tool, how many projects adopted it, or how much technical friction it reduced for building on Rootstock. It might even be necessary to request prior references from developers or verifiable Rootstock projects that demonstrate or confirm that the tool to be developed addresses a key pain point and that it would be useful or desirable to have it.
- In the case of analytics, dashboards, or data infrastructure, the impact is even harder to quantify directly. Metrics such as number of queries, usage by builders, delegates, or community members, or integration into governance and decision-making processes may be more relevant indicators.
We believe it will be important to develop more nuanced and creative evaluation mechanisms so that the ROI of these kinds of grants, which are often indirect or enabling in nature, can still be assessed in a reasonably objective way, without relying primarily on the subjective opinions of reviewers.