[Temp Check] Jito Anchors Funding for Solana Retroactive Public Good Funding (RPGF) Program 2

[Temp Check] Jito Anchors Initiative for Solana RPGF Round 2

Designed By: OpenBlock Labs

1. Title and Category

Expanding Solana RPGF Support: A Jito Treasury Initiative

Category: Treasury

2. Abstract

This proposal seeks to allocate $200,000 in JTO tokens from Jito’s Treasury to anchor the funding for Solana’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) Round 2. By supporting projects that have delivered significant public good within the Solana ecosystem, we aim to foster innovation, enhance ecosystem resilience, and demonstrate Jito’s commitment to the broader blockchain community.

3. Motivation

The Solana ecosystem benefits significantly from public goods, such as open-source projects, that lack sufficient funding due to the absence of direct monetization avenues. The successful execution of RPGF Round 1 illustrated the potential of retroactive funding to incentivize and reward the development of such public goods. By participating as a key funder for Round 2, Jito not only solidifies its leadership role within the Solana community but also contributes to a sustainable model of innovation and development that benefits the entire blockchain space.

4. Key Terms

  • RPGF (Retroactive Public Goods Funding): A funding mechanism that rewards projects post-completion for their public value to the Solana ecosystem.
  • JTO Tokens: The native cryptocurrency of the Jito ecosystem used for transactions, governance, and incentives.
  • Public Goods: Services or products that offer widespread benefits to the community but are not funded or developed through traditional market mechanisms.

5. Specification

The proposal outlines a contribution of $200,000 in JTO tokens to the Solana RPGF Round 2 funding pool. This funding will be directed towards projects that have already demonstrated their value to the ecosystem. The allocation process will involve community voting to ensure transparency and fairness. A detailed implementation plan will include the establishment of criteria for project eligibility, a timeline for nomination and voting phases, and a strategy for fund disbursement.

Solana RPGF Round 2 Spec


  • Participants: Blockchain developers, tech enthusiasts, and community members involved in the Solana ecosystem.
  • Delegates: 30 selected based on their contributions and activity within the Solana community. OBL is already working with 56+ protocols and has a lot of data on top-performing protocols, so this will make finding delegates much easier. and also consolidate data into one area for the community


  • Program: Solana Retroactive Public Goods Funding (Solana RPGF) - a funding mechanism designed to support projects that have delivered significant public good within the Solana ecosystem.
  • Funding: Grants allocated retroactively to projects that have already demonstrated a positive impact.
  • Categories: Focusing on tech stack enhancement, developer ecosystem support, governance initiatives, and user experience improvements.
  • Amount: The first round can be $1M in SOL tokens.


  • Timeline: May to September 2024.
  • Nominations: May 1, 2024, to May 15, 2024.
  • Delegate Voting: June 15, 2024, to June 30, 2024.
  • Results Announcement: July 15, 2024.
  • Funding Disbursement: Between July 1, 2024, and September 31, 2024.


  • Platform: A dedicated portal like this one
  • Community Engagement: Through forums, social media, and other online platforms relevant to the Solana community.

6. Benefits/Risks


  • Enhances Jito’s reputation as a community-focused and innovative leader in the blockchain space.
  • Contributes to the growth and stability of the Solana ecosystem, potentially benefiting Jito’s interoperability and functionality within this space.
  • Fosters a culture of collaboration and public good support across the blockchain industry.


  • The potential for projects to not deliver further value post-funding.

7. Outcomes

The desired outcomes include increased innovation within the Solana ecosystem, a strengthened reputation for Jito as a leader in supporting public goods, and the establishment of a sustainable funding model that can be replicated across other blockchain communities.

8. Cost Summary

The total proposed funding amount is $200,000, to be allocated in JTO tokens. This will be drawn from Jito’s Treasury reserves allocated for ecosystem development and public good initiatives.

9. Performance Milestones

  • Completion of Funding Round: Successfully distribute the allocated funds by the end of Q3 2024.
  • Project Impact Assessment: Conduct a review of funded projects’ impacts 6 months post-funding to evaluate the success and areas for improvement in future rounds.

OpenBlock Labs is an R&D firm focused on scaling decentralized organizations through data-driven incentive optimization. OpenBlock is backed by notable figures in the crypto space, including: Foundation Capital, Electric Capital, Circle Ventures, AlleyCorp, and others.

The team has backgrounds from a16z, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Two Sigma, Protocol Labs, Amazon, MasterCard, and other top-tier institutions; the highly technical background of our team makes us confident that OpenBlock is uniquely positioned to tackle a problem of this nature.

Twitter: @openblocklabs


Hi there,

can you share more information about which projects received funding in round 1 and what level of funding?

As a delegate participating in round 1 I was concerned by the inclusion of duplicate enties of some projects as well as weakness of the presented “public good” as well as material misrepresentation by a specific project.

I would be good to know what specific learnings were achieved from that round in both attracting applicants, reviewing and filtering as well as validating the actual public good in validity and impact.

You also ask for $1m in funding but don’t further specify specific number of protocols you’d like to see and expected min, median and max funding granted to these.

Thanks for elaborating

Just to clarify my comment from X Spaces as my connection was iffy:

Last round had 4 or 5 categories and each category had 100 or so total points that could be allocated to the projects in that proposal. Some categories had 3 or 4 projects and others had 15+, this leads to some projects naturally getting a far higher point scoring when there is less competition in a category.

I’d suggest either making the total points to allocate split across all categories, rather than per category, or ensuring each category has an equivalent or almost equivalent number of projects.

Yes, we have the exact amounts on who got funding and how much here: OpenBlock Labs

Our specific learnings align with your observations. Please see our retrospective here: OpenBlock Labs

We are asking for $200k worth of JTO and trying to achieve a $1m total round size

Good point re: category / point distribution. Completely agree - we need to normalize distributions per category based on number of qualified projects.

Other related improvements we intend to make for Category redesign:

  • Rethink Project Categories: The current ones don’t completely satisfy what we’re looking for exactly and can be re-worked.
  • Simplified Impact Metrics: Adopt 3 well-defined metrics for each category to streamline evaluation and ensure understanding of impact among delegates.
  • Verifiable Data Requirement: Require projects to provide verifiable data to back their impact claims, ensuring authenticity and reducing manipulation risks.

This post doesn’t seem to state anything about what’s requested from Jito. Would recommend it is re-written in a more clear way before going to formal proposal

Additionally, keep in mind if what you’re asking for falls under the scope of the constitution (https://www.jito.network/docs/governance/constitution-of-the-jito-foundation/). Hopefully, this helps with the direction of the rewrite. Some delegates have suggested it would be best to highlight how our contributions to your initiative will benefit the overall JITO community.

Gone ahead and done this. Thanks for the feedback!

1 Like

Adjusted it. Appreciate the feedback!

Hi folks,

Following our delegate call earlier today, I’d like to push a few questions I have from this proposal. Personally, I think this proposal is very important, especially when we compare it to similar initiatives like those seen with Optimism. Here’s a few questions/concerns I have after some further investigation:

  1. Reputation/Scoring System: Is there a plan to implement a reputation or scoring system for projects that achieve impactful outcomes, ensuring their progression to subsequent RPGF rounds?

  2. Expanding Focus Areas: Could we broaden the topics? While these current areas are very valuable, I think we can take lessons from other programs to help the Solana community. To elaborate, I believe there is room for some academic/theory driven areas of focus. Of course, given the nature of that area, it would need somewhat more hand holding.

  3. Feedback Framework: While it might sound overly formal, I think establishing a more urgent feedback mechanism for both delegates and RPGF winners is important. From my experience with projects, the absence of structured feedback—or a reliable channel for it—can be quite frustrating. Such a system could significantly enhance the project’s impact and facilitate continuous improvement. While I know this proposes a feedback system after the completion of the project, I think it should have some more urgency to enhance the quality of future projects.

  4. Sale/Lock-Up Policies: What policies are considered for the sale or lock-up of funds with this?

  5. Addressing Power Dynamics: Echoing concerns raised by Lefteris in the Optimism ecosystem, the involvement of different institutions is inevitable as we grow. How do we intend to manage VCs and other influential participants that could possibly enter an RPGF round?

1 Like

Thank you for the proposal. In general, we are supportive of RPGF programs for their potential positive externalities, especially as Solana matures and attracts more developers and users; however, we are also mindful of their effectiveness–mostly attributable to the challenge of measuring the success and impact of “public goods”.

We acknowledge the feedback and learnings you gained from Round 1, and have a couple questions:

  • It has been a number of months since the last RPGF. Considering the risk stated in the proposal, is there any post-funding analysis available?
  • Part of the retrospective on round 1 includes implementing metrics to aid delegates on future rounds. Have you identified these metrics? And have you kept track of them?
  • Could you share the details of the application?
  • Does OpenBlock take a fee?

Addressing the above should provide delegates better context for how to think about moving forward on this proposal, voting on future candidates, and avoiding a situation in which this program is just retroactive funding without the “public goods”. For example, having a more objective basis to evaluate candidates can mitigate voting behavior that resembles a “popularity contest.”

1 Like

It might be worth requesting investment funding details for candidates. That way, we have context for other parties involved.