Proposal: [Grant 0907] Recognized Delegate Compensation - June 2026 | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of distributing compensation to delegates as proposed, which is consistent with the current characteristics of the delegate program and the metrics collected during June.
Proposal: Update OpenOcean Builder Reward Receiver Address | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: After verifying that the proposal was submitted by the builder’s official forum account, we voted in favor of it, as it involves a simple modification to the wallet that receives rewards, which has no impact on the DAO.
Rationale: Unfortunately, we had a problem with the computer we use for voting at the Rootstock delegation, and we weren’t able to fix it in time, so we couldn’t vote (it’s now up and running for future votes).
Nevertheless, we would like to state our position on this vote, which is against it, since, as this is Milestone 3 and the final one, it must include one of the features that were committed to as fully functional; however, DOC Minting with mainnet mints traceable is not live as committed. Since this is the final Milestone, the DAO will have no further opportunity to request its implementation; therefore, we believe that funding should not be released until this committed feature has been fully integrated.
Proposal: Blockscout Global Wallet - M3 Final Milestone | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal, as we believe the proposer has successfully delivered the minimum milestones committed to, both in terms of features and infrastructure. We also want to highlight the significant budget reduction from the original proposal, particularly in this final milestone, leaving it to the DAO to decide whether to fund the next phase of the project, which would focus on scaling the product through additional marketing efforts and new integrations.
If the proposer decides to move into this scaling phase and require additional funding, we would expect to see a concrete growth plan, together with evidence of ongoing discussions with prospective integration partners (for example, through Letters of Intent), demonstrating a credible pipeline of new dApps. In line with the new Grant Guidelines, we would also expect verifiable on-chain growth metrics that would justify the progressive release of additional funding as predefined milestones are achieved.
Proposal: [2606 Builder Activation] Stelios & Mick (Geyser Team) | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal. It does not request grant funding, but rather seeks builder activation, and we believe the applicants clearly meet the requirements for that role, since Stelios and Mick have built a strong track record through their work on Geyser, where they have delivered meaningful and valuable contributions to the Rootstock ecosystem, generating measurable on-chain impact. We also welcome the proposed initial Backer Reward allocation of 72%, which we believe could be an attractive incentive for RIF stakers.
If the proposal is approved, we look forward to seeing the builders engage directly with and contribute to the broader Rootstock ecosystem. While Geyser serves as a strong demonstration of their capabilities and reputation, this application is being made in their individual capacity as builders.
Proposal: [Grant 0708] Recognized Delegate Compensation - July 2026 | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of distributing compensation to delegates as proposed, which is consistent with the current characteristics of the delegate program and the metrics collected during July.
Proposal: DZap — One-Click RIF Staking on Rootstock | RootstockCollective
Vote: AGAINST
Rationale: We quote our comments from the post thread to explain our against vote:
Proposal: [2601 Grant] SwaptoX Aggregator – Milestone3 | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal, as we believe Milestone 2 has been successfully delivered and regarding the Milestone 3 (migrating the frontend to a React/Next.js architecture, developing the SwaptoX Widget component to enable other dApps to integrate swap functionality, creating developer documentation, building a mobile-optimized application, and completing the deferred UI-related items), these scopes do not involve sensitive technical components and can therefore proceed while the outstanding audit-related issues are being addressed.
We believe this approach allows the project to continue making progress on the non-sensitive components of the roadmap while appropriately deferring any development that depend on resolving the pending audit matters.
Proposal: [2609 Builder Activation] JXLabs | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We vote in favor, as JXLabs is a well-established and recognized builder within the Rootstock ecosystem, with a proven track record and a comprehensive and interesting suite of products already built. The Builder Activation therefore seems like a natural next step, and the proposed 50/50 reward distribution falls within the established parameters while also appearing to be a reasonable and potentially attractive model for the community and backers.
Proposal: [Grant 2609] Recognized Delegate Compensation - August 2026 | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of distributing compensation to delegates as proposed, which is consistent with the current characteristics of the delegate program and the metrics collected during August.
Proposal: [Builder Deactivation Proposal] Tally | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: This is the deactivation proposal that raises the most concerns for us, as Tally (now Cactus) provides a functionality that the Rootstock Collective dApp currently lacks and that we consider particularly valuable: tracking and displaying who voted and how they voted.
That said, the product is now in the hands of a new team, which was not the team originally approved for inclusion as a Builder. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to deactivate it for the time being. If the new team wishes to continue participating as a Builder, they should submit a new application and go through the appropriate voting process.
Proposal: [Builder Deactivation Proposal] Tropykus | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We support the deactivation of Tropykus as a Builder, as the team has completely wind-down the project and there is therefore no longer an active product for backers to support.
Proposal: [2609 Builder Deactivation Proposal ] Boltz | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale Similar to the Tropikus case, we support the deactivation of Boltz, as its Rootstock integration is currently inactive. As a result, there is no active product for stRIF backers to support. If the new team taking over the project demonstrates a willingness to continue building on Rootstock and become a Builder of the Collective, its activation should be put to a new vote.
Proposal: 1delta Intents - Milestone 1 (T1, initial tranche) | RootstockCollective
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal and of the way it has been structured. The initial T1 tranche, which is specifically subject to this vote, is intended to cover the costs of the smart contract audit. These contracts will be immutable and ungoverned once deployed, making the audit a very necessary, indispensable, and sensitive step at this early stage of a project like the one proposed, particularly given that it will handle user funds.
We also support the project itself, as it introduces a product that does not currently exist on Rootstock. Among other things, it aims to make it more efficient for users to swap RIF and USDRIF to and from other tokens, which is a priority area for the DAO, including without requiring users to hold rBTC for gas. This is achieved through an intents-based system with independent, permissionless solvers, without waitlists or approval requirements.
The final budget requested is reasonable, particularly given that it is tied to a clear and appropriately structured roadmap with strict milestones based on on-chain results and concrete deliverables, which is aligned with the current Grant Guidelines.
We also want to highlight and appreciate the team’s willingness to modify and iterate on the original proposal based on the feedback received, ultimately resulting in a stronger proposal than the initial version.