Accountability of Phase 0/1 Funds given to projects

Phase 0 has officially ended and soon team will unlock 36M OP token and distribute it to the Phase 0 projects.

Same steps will happen for Phase 1 projects when voting will end for Phase 1. Similar to Phase 0 proposals, I have gone through all the Phase 1 Proposals, I have followed them, suggested them something and learned something from them.

Now, I will cast my vote and would like to know how the project(s) are spending those token given to them.

Some are saying I can follow the token recipient address on-chain (here I can only see the amount and address, what I want to know is whether the amount was given for Dev/Marketing/integration and so on…)while other are giving privacy reason (valid reason)as not to share the spending data.

Why I want to know:-

  1. As a delegate, I am passionate about this gov model and I want support this ecosystem but I need tools, this data is the tool, I trust data more than words
  2. It will help me in making better decision.
  3. We can see and learn from them.
  4. If same project is submitting another proposal, their past data will help us decision making.
  5. Without accountability, there are chances that fund might not be used at right places.
  6. This will help me become a better delegate, with data to support my judgement call, I will learn from them and use them as tool to make better judgement call.

If projects(s) are not willing to share he data directly to me, will they share it with OP Team and they can anonymize and share it with us.

I want to know your opinion and team opinion on this.


I do like this idea of accountability.

However, how do you propose to create a clear/transparent ledger without sharing of addresses?
Also, how would you know what purpose it was used for?

I’m curious. :thinking:


That is a good question, and this is what I was thinking.

For integration fund, one example will be Infinity Wallet proposal where 80% is going for dev and integration - Let’s say project A is giving some incentive to project B for their integration, in this case I think it would not be a problem to share their address as both are public application.

For marketing and content creation (for example 80% Marketing proposal of Kromatika Proposal): - This depends on content creator(s), if they are willing to make their address public then the project can share otherwise sharing address is against privacy.
But then in this case, at least they can share the content that was created, and the token distributed.

For airdrop and incentive for LP, they dont need to share the addresses as the number will be huge but here, I am thinking about a dashboard (Dune may be) where I can filter the data on weekly/monthly time frame.

For Development Budget (such as candide wallet ):- Again, it depends on individual developer if s/he is willing to share their address otherwise the project team need to share their combined monthly overall spending.

There are many proposal that falls under those category, I am using those names as I was actively involved there.

What do you think? How can be get collect the data without compromising privacy ?


Publish quarterly financial statements.

  1. Profit & Loss Statement
  2. Balance Sheet
  3. Cash Flow Statement
  4. (Optional) Statement of Changes in Equity

Publish these in shared Google Sheets or Google Docs.

This is how every organisation on the planet communicates to their external investors, creditors and government authorities, so they can be held accountable to their responsibilities, commitments and regulations (or ideally to be able to flex).

Sorry if I sound exhausted and a bit fed up @OPUser It’s the result of watching the Snapshot results for Summa all throughout the day :man_facepalming: :rofl:


Hi @rich
To your question, see my answer above :point_up:

1 Like

All good, token based gov has many issues but I hope it will change with inclusion of OP citizens

1 Like

Hold on a sec. Somebody for Optimism said we cant use funds from the grant for internal dev.
Funds for incentivizing growth only.

So now, I am wondering how infinity wallet is going to allocate 80% for dev purposes.

Ok this sounds decent

1 Like

This is the keyword, growth has a wide range, if the project can justify the use of fund as supporting growth, I would support them


Possibly they could make it a requirement for eligibility to future fortnightly rounds?

Or, if voluntary, then keep a similar public record of who opted-in and who chose not not disclose these reports?

Overall, considering the value of some of the Phase 0/1 token allocations, keeping adequate records & thus allowing the production of these statements is very little to ask.
Ideally, and again considering the value of these allocations, having a bookkeeper on staff/contract and a qualified accountant at least on retainer would allow for all the reporting the Foundation and Community needs.

Thanks for your time.
Kind regards,

1 Like

Ok got it. Thanks. :+1:

1 Like

Great post. We also voted on all Phase 1 proposals and will share our reasoning with proposers and community in a bit. As an accountable delegate interested in the best outcome for Optimism, OP token holders and the overall ecosystem, we’d also like to get insights into actual spending of funds.

Sidenote: In the future, it will be important to see proposals earlier, enabling us to engage more before the voting process starts, so proposers can potentially adjust their proposals and incorporate more feedback.

First steps to better accountability:

  1. A brief monthly update on spending and results.

  2. A dashboard (Dune?) that enables us to track spending and on-chain KPIs.


Thank you for echoing my view.


Having a bookkeeper and accountant would require these proposals to request a much larger amount in their proposals.

I think the best would be having projects keep basic records and provide a quarterly update on the usage of the funds, either to delegators or the Optimism team to allow some accountability on the usage of funds and ensuring they are actually used!

Edit: Another thing I just thought of is projects depending on how they are setup and where they are based may be liable to pay tax on any funds they receive. This could be up to 50% depending on the country, meaning projects when asking say 1,000,000 OP may only be getting 500,000 OP as an example.


Your edit is spot on, there will most likely be income tax implications.

I agree with accountability but it completely depends on what the funds are spent on.

If it’s spent on development then the results of that development would be what to judge the team on.
If it’s spent on marketing then, the blogposts, social media campaign, swag will be what to judge the team on.
If it’s spent on on-chain incentivization of LPs etc., then this is quite easy to follow since each team would probably be using a smart contract for this so it would be transparent for all to see.

But yes I agree that each team should have a budget proposal, work outline etc. which would show what they plan to spend the funds on so that this later can be double checked.


I agree with this. I think in this regard we should work out a system that allows the protocols to be transparent with us and not require us to do so much work to verify that the funds have been spent correctly.

In an extreme case designate a work unit for this particular issue that tracks all the protocols and submits a weekly, monthly or quarterly report on how the protocols are spending the $OP tokens correctly.

I also believe that instead of sending the total amount of tokens in a single transaction, is to ask in the next phases that the protocols provide a payment plan by goals or dates and gradually release the funds. This taking into account that:

1. Tokens can be stolen from your treasury by a hack, carpet or exploit.

2. The protocol can misuse the funds and in that case cut off the supply of $OP tokens.

3. The protocol may be delayed with development or even abandoned (Applies to protocols that are under development).

4. Protocols where funds have to be approved by their DAO, may vote on a proposal that is not aligned with the Optimism Vision.

For point 4 in particular, I think that protocols that rely on the DAO for the use of tokens, we should establish that the proposal must first be approved by their DAO and then request the phases in Optimism.

These are just some ideas, I think it would be wise to take some time to think and come up with better systems for the next phases. Let’s keep in mind that the ecosystem is intended for the long term, there is no need to consult the Governance Fund quickly.


hey @OPUser, Thanks for actively working on Optimism governance and coming up with new ideas on how to make governance better. I agree with accountability for projects receiving funds in Phase 0 and Phase 1. There’s multiple ways we can do that, and I echo @lefterisjp in that the work done in each area (dev, marketing, incentives) is what should be tracked.

As a collective, we want projects to succeed and achieve the Optimism grant goals. That’s why I also suggest that each project that receives a grant can ask for a delegate to become their advisor, specifically for the grant they are asking. The delegate will be able help the project grow and achieves its goals that was stated in the grant proposal. The delegates will also offer advise on transparency and can act as link between the grantee and the voters. Ongoing communication is the key to the success of any project. How we setup delegates as advisors for projects is up for a discussion and I would love to see this coming for phase 0 and phase 1 projects.


This is an important topic and I think each team will need to find the best way show some accountability for their particular situation. Generally speaking, I think there should be some public company wallet(s) that shows the flow of tokens received from Optimism. That can be easily tracked with something like, though as mentioned, this doesn’t necessarily show what the tokens are being used for.

A quarterly or semi-annual report seems reasonable to me. The team can communicate how many tokens have been allocated and what they have to show for the particular areas of spending. Of course this can be checked against the public wallet(s) to verify it is all valid. This report can be a public release or limited to some group of Optimism representatives that can validate the claims.

It should be pretty easy to check and see if the goals are generally being achieved, even without a formal report. Ideally teams should be encouraged to have some sort of public dashboard to track whatever metrics are relevant to their project.

Speaking as a new project that isn’t very well known yet, we are ready to prove ourselves and we are trying to figure out the best way to unlock funds as we verifiably achieve our goals. I would personally like to have some representative or group of representatives from Optimism that have the ability to unlock those funds via a multi-sig. This way, once we have achieved the outlined goals, we could initiate a transaction, notify the representatives, and only if verified that transaction would be approved, sending those tokens into our team wallet. It would be ideal to have multiple representatives that can sign off on a transaction to avoid a situation that could infinitely lock up the tokens.

Another option for verifying outcomes might be to use something like kleros court (, especially if a team is applying for repeat funding. They would submit whatever evidence was sufficient to prove the previous amount was appropriately spent and outlined goals were achieved, then a decentralized jury would approve or reject the claims. To my knowledge, this isn’t on Optimism, though, so probably not a the best option at this point.

1 Like

i support this and agree