Hope we’re not too late to join the conversation, we align with the new grants framework and all 6 points in the latest update. As the Rootstock Collective needs to make sure we have sufficient return on every project we fund, including FES to evaluate performance is the right direction. We look forward to a full breakdown of how each component is weighted.
Another point we’d like to raise is around the hard gate process. With 8 steps already in place, we align with all of them, though we do have one question on Step 3: the mandatory Initial AMA before onchain submission. We’re not against the idea of an AMA, but we’re curious about its role at this specific stage, is it there to give delegates more room to ask questions, to signal builder commitment, or something else? We just want to make sure it’s genuinely adding value rather than adding time to an already thorough process.
We think that function is already being covered, and covered well, through the written discussion period on the forum. Delegates already have different strategies and styles when it comes to providing feedback, for example, DAOstar goes deep on financials and return, Tane focuses on audit and security, and so on. Builders are already expected to respond to all of this in detail, and a written exchange naturally forces more precision than a live session would. If anything, an AMA at this stage might end up being more surface-level compared to what the forum period already produces.
We also think it’s worth considering the tradeoff here, between speed, participation, and decentralization. With 8 hard gates already in the process, it might be worth asking whether Step 3 is doing something the forum period isn’t already doing.
On that note, we’d like to kindly suggest an alternative: if delegates feel a proposal has already reached a sufficient level on everything that needs to be reviewed, a simple endorsement comment for onchain submission (minimum 3 delegates) should be enough to move it forward. Similar to the model Scroll uses. This way we still have a meaningful check in place, without adding unnecessary time to the process.
Thank you so much, @Axia for catching that, you are correct, and I had that wrong. I really appreicate you spotting that!. I was looking at the acronym through a strictly ROI lens, but tracking Ecosystem Value (TVL, txs, wallets) makes a lot more sense for what we’re trying to build here. Especially since the tracked value will be a mixer of a few different moving parts rather than just a single dollar amount, it’s going to be really important for builders to understand how the Foundation is putting more emphasis weight behind TVL vs. new wallet growth. Tks!
Thank you so much, @tamlerner for the revised Grant Guidelines V3.2.2, it’s an excellent revision! We also so appreicate your inclusion from the delegate’s feedback with the standardizing the monthly reports, implementing the 30% terminal milestone holdback, and allowing builders to propose custom FES metrics for non-DeFi verticals completely resolves the operational and financial blind spots.
We do have just one quick question on Point 5 (FES for Non-DeFi Verticals):
If a builder proposes their own FES framework, what is the exact mechanism for “delegate approval” on the forum? To prevent high-quality proposals from stalling into a gray area, it would be helpful to establish a clear timeline - for example, if no major objections are raised within 7 days (or 10 days to allow for weekends), the framework is considered provisionally approved for the on-chain vote. This provides a SLA for the grant author and the Collective to be able to adjust any timelines and allocation of effort accordingly. Great work!
@tamlerner Thanks for this grants patch, and for clearly incorporating feedback from delegates.
I’m supportive of the direction. The changes move the grants process toward a more outcome-driven and evidence-based framework, which should help delegates make better decisions and help the Collective be more disciplined with treasury spend.
The parts I especially like are the added focus on demand validation, clearer milestone reporting, and the post-completion holdback. Those all point in the same direction: funding projects that can demonstrate real traction, measurable progress, and credible value creation for the Rootstock ecosystem.
The demand validation requirement is especially important. As you write:
This is the right shift.
Delegates should still debate whether a project is worth funding, but potential grantees should come into that discussion with some credible evidence of demand. This should also help reduce noise by improving the quality of projects that make it to an on-chain vote. If demand validation becomes a hard gate earlier in the process, then delegates can spend less time filtering out weak or underdeveloped proposals and more time evaluating the projects with evidence of real market, user, or ecosystem pull.
I also appreciate that the cross-funding disclosure requirement is framed as transparency rather than exclusion. Many strong projects will raise from multiple ecosystems, and that is not inherently a problem. The important thing is that delegates can clearly understand what Rootstock Collective is funding, what outcomes are attributable to the Collective’s support, and whether there is any overlap in scope.
Overall, I think this is a positive step toward making Rootstock Collective grants more accountable, more measurable, and better aligned with growing the network.
Long term, that is what will strengthen Rootstock’s position as the leading Bitcoin sidechain for builders and users!
How do you suggest a grant applicant should proceed, and what should we, as delegates, demand? Should the applicant set up a private meeting and invite the delegates, should the AMA be held on the proposer’s official X account open to everybody, should the AMA be coordinated with you from the Collective’s side, or in some other way?
Strong direction @tamlerner. These 6 points address real gaps in V3.2 and I’m supportive of moving forward.
I have questions on this:
Does the LOI requirement apply uniformly across all tiers, including Seed (<$3K)? I think requiring a named integrator LOI for a sub $3K grant feels disproportionate, has the team considered tier-adjusted thresholds for the evidence required?
And at what step in the application flow must Demand Validation be submitted, before or after the off chain proposal?
Hello @tamlerner , will you still be publishing the revised v3.2.2/v3.3 on the Forum, as you mentioned a couple of weeks ago, are you still looking for more feedback from delegates? Tks!
We’re not building a heavy fraud-detection layer, not worth it for our size right now but
Wallets will need repeat activity over time, not just creation
TVL gets cross-checked against on-chain data, not self-reported numbers - via FES dashboard that will go live soon. MVP is already live and being tested internally.
Not introducing formal top-down targets on top of the Strategic Themes for now since the public FES dashboard should surface ecosystem-level signal once it’s live
We’d rather have a handful of well-aligned grants than a tracking exercise/filtering noise for now.
The Initial AMA is really aimed at people outside the forum, folks who aren’t deep in Discourse or the dApp yet
It’s a discovery moment, a chance for them to meet the founders and find their way to the dApp through that - and to be honest also a bit more of a personal touch.
Not meant to duplicate the forum discussion, more of a wider door in
Appreciate everyone digging into this with us, keep the thoughts coming if anything here doesn’t sit right
I was looking at the acronym through a strictly ROI lens, but tracking Ecosystem Value (TVL, txs, wallets) makes a lot more sense for what we’re trying to build here. Especially since the tracked value will be a mixer of a few different moving parts rather than just a single dollar amount, it’s going to be really important for builders to understand how the Foundation is putting more emphasis weight behind TVL vs. new wallet growth. Tks!
