Hi Matt, thank you for your observations. I have amended the proposal with some additions and will check if removing parts of the descriptions makes sense as you highlighted the description of the project is not clear to you.
I will give some brief answers here relating to the parts that have been modified after your comments.
Hey Gab! Just to be 100% clear here - I really don’t know what Rigoblock is based on this info, and going to the dapp shows me a Uniswap V2 fork-esque protocol without any usable pools to play around with.
I modified the project description. Rigoblock is a protocol for on-chain asset management, replicating the operations of an asset management company in a transparent and publicly verifiable way.
Reg. the dapp, it is aimed at facilitating interaction with the smart pools for pool operators. Hence, only the operated pools are displayed. I added a link in the project links to the url that redirects to information about a pool given its address (i.e. name, symbol, total supply, unitary value, pool operator, portfolio evaluation through Zapper, and other information like spread, fee, …). The link is aimed at being shared by the pool operator with his relevant peers. With that said, a better displaying of existing pools is work-in-progress.
Please note that while the interface is derived from the Uniswap interface, i.e. a fork of the Uniswap interface with new sections for operating a pool, the protocol is an original product. The reason behind choosing the Uniswap interface as base is that Rigoblock pools are connected to Uniswap and the format of the transactions is the same, therefore making deployment of the interface faster. Rigoblock pools can swap tokens on Uniswap (leveraging both V3 and V2 smart routing) and provide liquidity on Uniswap V3. Rigoblock pools’ activity is not just limited to operating on Uniswap, as already staking on the GRG staking system and creating a proposal, voting in the Rigoblock governance is possible. In the future, more external applications will be integrated based on demand.
Could you summarize some of the improvements of Rigoblock compared to similar protocols and also how you’d come to the conclusion that safe.global / enzyme finance are competitors? Just having a bit of a hard time understanding what Rigo does here.
I have added a comparison in the competitors section.
Please provide more information on the distribution and how much is allocated to each. 100% is fine if that’s the proposal. Though it’s important to provide more details on the exact calculation of OP rewards and how liquidity will be sourced to support these Rigoblock pools.
I provided details on calculation in the distribution section. This piece of code here (github) is relevant for the rewards calculations. The linked smart contract is deployed on Optimism at address 0xB844bDCC64a748fDC8c9Ee74FA4812E4BC28FD70.
The provided metrics lack specificity and are not tied to clear timeframes. Without specific target dates, it is difficult to assess progress and hold the project accountable. Additionally, the critical milestones mentioned seem to be unrelated (and less critical) milestones. Please revise the milestones to provide clearer and more measurable targets. Review the milestone assessment doc for more information.
I have amended the milestones with exact dates and program of grant receival. I have included what I initially defined as critical milestones in the milestones they are relevant to. I have also set two objective critical milestones.
Yet again, it’s very unclear to me on what RigoBlock does (based on the available UI, and other information) and how it would solve a core problem on Optimism.
I have added a point as DAO treasuries can use Rigoblock to implement active treasury management strategies, keep track of their actively managed tokens, delegate management to community members/groups. Imo this is relevant as community treasuries will evolve over time and will want to generate yield on their otherwise idle tokens. Also DAO treasuries will have stricter requirements than normal users, which is something that Rigobock does accomodate. If the other points are confusing, I will remove them from the proposal.
Please further comment should the answer still not be clear. Thank you again for reviewing the proposal in depth.