LFW Rapid Research Review Scores

	B	C	D	H	I	J	K
1	Reviewer Name:	LFW
2	Personal Favorite:	Medipools	I like ideas I haven't considered before. This is one of them.
3	Second Favorite:	Priority Deposit Pool	I'm not even convinced this is a good idea, but again, I like it because it's very out of the box.
4	Third Favourite:	Universal Variable Commission	Just a solid no-frills improvement that helps start to resolve a major protocol imbalance issue.
5
6
7	Summed Score	Author	Application	Utility	Innovativeness	Simplicity	Notes
8	6	NeverAnIsland	Built-In RPL pool	3 - Medium	2 - Low	1 - Very Low	Achieves many goals if was fully implemented. However, this suffers from trying to solve too many problems at once. An iterative approach of more limited and contained changes would likely be more effective. In practice, this is implementing a lending pool in-protocol, so not hugely innovative.
9	9	Valdorff	MYSO Loans	2 - Low	2 - Low	5 - Very High	High simplicity in that it requires no changes to the protocol. However, this means low innovation (suggesting use of an existing thing), though admittedly it is the only submission that suggests this approach, which gives it some points. I would also judge utility as limited on the basis that NOs are required to take on external protocol risk, exchanging RPL price risk for harder-to-judge governance, technical and economic risks.
10	10	Valdorff	Rent or Stake	4 - High	3 - Medium	3 - Medium	Achieves a goal with relatively low complexity, and is innovative within the context of the research submissions. The 'value of certainty' argument is not really made elsewhere, and neatly resolves an issue many NOs have: That the changing RPL price makes long-term profitability uncertain.
11	10	Samus	Diverted Rewards	5 - Very High	1 - Very Low	4 - High	Simple, neat and well communicated. Highly optional with some exploration of the various options. Something of an obvious answer to this problem that was submitted a few times with minor variation, so scores low on innovation.
12	9	epineph	Unsmoothing Fee/lottery fee	3 - Medium	4 - High	2 - Low	Fairly unique idea, and from what I can tell would help to resolve the problem. However, this seems like a complicated fix as it requires additional structures and groups. I suspect this would be politically difficult, as the idea of paying for something most are not comtemplating would be unpopular. I fear it's also hard to understand. It took me a good chunk of time to get my head around what it was doing, and how that achieved the goal.
13	11	epineph	Universal Variable Commission	5 - Very High	3 - Medium	3 - Medium	Feels like a no-brainer, there needs to be a way to balance the two sides of the protocol. This solution is fairly complex, but its a complex problem and the author put effort into reducing it with clear recommendations.
14	8	epineph	Jaws of life- dynamically valuing RPL	2 - Low	3 - Medium	3 - Medium	Could be good in theory. In practice I suspect it would have a negligible impact. Seems likely that at some point zero RPL bond minipools in some form will be allowed, which makes this less effective.
15	9	epineph	Penalties revamp	3 - Medium	2 - Low	4 - High	Has some good elements, but feels a bit like a sticking plaster for an issue that should be resolved once forced exits are possible. Arguably more simple and elegant than the current 3-strike system.
16	6	epineph	RPL bond sliding scale	2 - Low	2 - Low	2 - Low	Feels like unecessary complexity, and I don't think this solves the core issue that many NOs have with holding any RPL at all. Apparently has come up before, so low score for innovation as well.
17	9	epineph	Preferential queue for higher ETH bonded minipools	2 - Low	4 - High	3 - Medium	Feels hard to judge this one. Sounds like a useful improvement, but its difficult to quantify its value. Feels like it would be more complex than it sounds to implement.
18	12	epineph	Medipools	4 - High	4 - High	4 - High	Seems very feasible, and a clever way to resolve some core issues with very low ETH bond amounts. Simple in idea and given some thought into reducing implementation complexity.
19	7	epineph	Pre-signed exit messages/reusable minipool contract	3 - Medium	3 - Medium	1 - Very Low	Feels like there is lots of hidden complexity here: this solution would touch multiple systems and puts more responsibility on the oDAO. It's an avenue no other entries explored so gets some points for innovation.
20	9	epineph	No-commission minipools	4 - High	1 - Very Low	4 - High	Simple idea that is communicated briefly. Loses minor points on utility due to inflexibility and less time put in in comparison to similar entries.
21	8	zesty	Collateral Requirements Removal	2 - Low	2 - Low	4 - High	Hard to judge this as a full entry compared to some others. Utility is scored down because it does not touch on the probable negative outcomes, or how to mitigate them. Not an original idea, though didn't come up too much in other entries, so gets some credit.
22	12	Valdorff	Direct Capture 2	5 - Very High	2 - Low	5 - Very High	Achieves a similar goal to other entries. While splitting the ETH commission component is more complex to understand, the ability to treat all nodes according to the same rules is more elegant than the alternatives, even if the rules are more complex.
23	12	Valdorff	Bond Curves	5 - Very High	3 - Medium	4 - High	Scores highly on utility because it provides actionable options with reasoning and numbers. Not addressing anything groundbreaking, but some points for the idea of top-heavy bonds. Ideas and implementation here are likely not too complex.
24	11	sckuzzle	Value Accruing Tokens	3 - Medium	5 - Very High	3 - Medium	Innovative on the basis that its considering an entirely different area to all other entries. Utility seems high, tax is a major consideration for many participants. While tax regimes are far from universal, income tax being higher than capital gains appears to be the norm. Downside is that its not a great look to make changes like this explicitly to try to improve tax favorability.
25	6	ArtDemocrat	rETH Protection	1 - Very Low	3 - Medium	2 - Low	A well written entry, but I strongly believe this is a case of overkill. There are less complex ways to disincentivise poor performance of NOs. While sympathetic to the problem, I think improvements in the protocol that offer a better cost-benefit balance can be made elsewhere.
26	10	Luominx	No RPL minipools	5 - Very High	1 - Very Low	4 - High	Small expansion on an idea presented in other entries. Scores low on innovation due to other entries and general obviousness. Slightly higher complexity than other versions due to flexibility around where value is redirected.
27	9	Occam	No RPL megapools	4 - High	3 - Medium	2 - Low	More innovative than some entries solving the same goal. However, this feels like an over-complex way of solving the separation of roles problem.
28	11	DagoDuck	Priority deposit pool (late entry)	3 - Medium	5 - Very High	3 - Medium	Felt like a very unique idea. My main issue with utility is that it performs much better if there is a market premium on rETH, which is not guaranteed. Not terribly complex, but still requires changes to multiple systems.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100