[0907 Grant Proposal] Rootstock QuestHub – M1 Vote: For Rationale:
QuestHub is a well-structured proposal with a milestone-based approach, an experienced team, and a clear goal: converting curious users into active participants through gamified onboarding and missions.
It aligns well with Rootstock Collective’s priorities and complements initiatives like Hacktivator and the upcoming Builders Club. The team has been consistently responsive and open to feedback.
I support funding this first milestone and look forward to seeing how it performs once live.
BΔLT – Decentralized Bitcoin Inheritance & Custody dApp Vote: For Rationale:
I support BΔLT because it tackles a real and urgent problem in the Bitcoin ecosystem: inheritance and long-term custody. The team at JXLabs has already built a working testnet version, published open-source contracts, and structured their grant with clear, milestone-based payouts.
They’re aligned with Rootstock’s mission of decentralization and sovereignty, and this proposal shows solid technical grounding and ecosystem fit. While usage metrics and audit are still ahead, what’s live today is functional and thoughtful. I believe this grant helps bring meaningful new utility to Bitcoin on Rootstock.
ONG Bitcoin Argentina – Rootstock Education & Infrastructure Program Vote: For Rationale:
This is a well-scoped, milestone-based education and outreach proposal from one of Latin America’s most established Bitcoin NGOs. The team has a proven track record organizing major events like Descentralizar and running high-quality online programs, and they’re deeply embedded in the Rootstock ecosystem through Money On Chain and broader Bitcoin education work.
The ask is modest, the milestones are clear and time-bound, and the potential grassroots impact is meaningful, especially across underserved regions. I support funding this proposal and see it as a strong example of community-led adoption aligned with Rootstock’s mission.
Builder Deactivation Proposal – Beexo Protocol Vote: For Rationale:
Beexo is based in the U.S., which contravenes the Collective’s geographic eligibility rules. Enforcing this restriction upholds legal compliance and ensures equal application of program terms.
Hi team.
thanks for the feedback on our proposal, we are following up with our improvements.
We added some of this later in our proposal, probably not in time.
Our backend repositories are now public (polygon was our first chain, hence the repo name, but we are on rootstock now )
About previous grant, here the offchain discussion. We provided documentation (like the smart contract audit reports) and onchain data for all our deliverables to the team that worked with us after obtaining the grant.
For our milestones, we diminished the estimated cost, there is some risk in doing this but we are willing to take it.
Rootstock Hackathon Vote: Against Rationale:
I support the goal of growing the Rootstock developer ecosystem, and I appreciate the initiative to organize a Solidity-focused hackathon. However, the proposal lacks clarity on key aspects: the on-chain amount (1,200 RIF) doesn’t match the stated prize value (€5,000), the broader event budget (~€16,500) isn’t backed by confirmed co-funding, and there are no clear milestones or post-event deliverables. I’m voting against in its current form, and would welcome a revised version with clearer alignment to the grant framework.
)