Collective Grant Policies

Collective Grant Policies

These grant policies apply to all Governance Fund grants and all OP Chain grant programs stemming from Governance Fund grants. Failure to abide with the below policies may result in the refusal to deliver subsequent milestone based deliveries of a grant and/or the clawback of a locked grant.

In the event that an applicant misuses their grant in a way that does not constitute a violation of these policies, a report should be filed via the Grant Misuse Reports category and their grant will be uploaded to a public database.

Note that these grant policies do not apply to Retroactive Public Goods Funding (Retro Funding) grants.

These policies will not cover all possible scenarios and edge cases. We ask that Optimists please act in accordance with the spirit of the Grant Policies and refrain from exploiting loopholes that may exist.

Disclosures

(Violation 1a)

Grants-as-a-service arrangements, while not prohibited, must be disclosed prominently in any proposals utilizing such services. These services include arrangements to help teams write, review, or otherwise submit proposals in exchange for a portion of any grant received.

No Sale Policy for OP User Incentives

(Violation 1b)

OP received through OP User Incentives Grants, or any grants made to deliver OP directly on to end users, should not be sold by the grant recipient. This “no sale” rule:

  • Includes the grant recipient, their affiliates and any other related persons. These persons cannot receive OP for the purpose of selling (or if the grant recipient knows they intend to sell) the tokens.
  • Includes the direct exchange of OP for crypto or fiat, whether done publicly or privately. Think selling OP in exchange for fiat or crypto, regardless of whether done on a CEX, DEX, OTC desk, at your local park, or otherwise.
  • Includes any other transaction that is an “effective sale,” as defined below.
  • Does not include using OP to incentivize usage. Providing OP as liquidity mining incentives is not restricted by these parameters.
  • There is no expiration to this rule for OP User Incentive Grants.
  • Grant recipients must be able to accept OP and/or use OP to execute their proposal.

Lock-Up

(Violation 1c)

OP received through all other grants, including Missions that do not pass OP directly on to end users, should not be sold by the grant recipient for a period of one year. The prohibition against selling includes any transaction that is an “effective sale,” as defined below. After a holding period of one year, Locked Grant recipients have full discretion over how they utilize OP, so long as it coincides with the objectives outlined in their proposal.

Effective Sale

(Violation 1d)

An effective sale includes selling, offering to sell, contracting or agreeing to sell, hypothecate, pledge, use as collateral, or creating derivatives of the OP tokens. It also includes entering into any arrangement that transfers to another person or entity, in whole or in part, any of the economic consequences of owning the OP tokens.

You can read more about the reasoning behind the token locks here .

Self-Delegation of Grants

(Violation 1e)

Grant recipients must not self-delegate user incentive grants for use in governance. Locked grants may be self-delegated during and/or after the one-year lock-up period. Delegations may be made or changed at the time a grant is received or at the start of a Season.

Changes to Proposals

(Violation 1f)

Grant recipients must execute the grant in accordance with what is outlined in the approved grant proposal. Grant recipients that wish to change the use of the grant from what is outlined in the proposal must submit a new proposal requesting approval for the change. To do so, they must follow the grants process in place at the time. If the change is not approved, the recipient must execute the grant as outlined in the original proposal or return the portion of grant affected by the unapproved change.

Grant recipients must give out user incentive grants within six months of the grant being made unless they give public notice to the community explaining any delay or request an extension approved by the Grants Council.

Critical Milestones and Clawback

Critical milestones demonstrate good faith effort to accomplish the aims set forth in a proposal.

Critical milestones are meant to provide the Optimism community with satisfaction that the proposer has taken actions consistent with those outlined in an approved proposal.

Non-completion of critical milestones will be grounds for clawback of any remaining locked tokens.

On-chain data or other publicly verifiable information is favored for the determination of critical milestones.

An example of a critical milestone is: “We will deploy X smart contract on Y date.”

Grants to Other OP Chains

The Collective Grant Policies apply to all OP Chain grants programs. OP Chains who receive grants must: (1) abide by these Collective Grant Policies in their grant program (i.e., make grants that follow the requirements set forth in these policies); and (2) not use their grant to run programs that directly target users from any other OP Chain (e.g. making grants to migrate protocols from OP Mainnet to another OP Chain). OP Chains will be expected to provide a list of grants made, as specified by the Foundation, to the Grants Council upon completion of their grant. OP Chains that do not do so, will not be eligble for future Governance Fund grants.


Enforcement

Violation of these policies can result in grant clawback or refusal to deliver a milestone based portion of the grant. To report a violation of the grant policies, use this reporting form. Violations will be processed by the Grants Council, subject to optimistic approval by the Token House. Given the importance of these policies, the Optimism Foundation can also enforce them and claw back any grants found to be in violation.

For misuse that does not constitute a violation of these policies, please follow the Grant Misuse Reporting Process.

Change Process

The Grant Policies must only be updated during Reflection Periods or following extraordinary circumstances that require immediate updates. In all cases, a change log will be published for delegates.

27 Likes

Thanks for the info and insight. We are very excited to build on Op Network and contributing to its growth in a large manner. -Jon W CEO RYI Unity

5 Likes

I understand from the RFP the current Foundation Missions #1 #2 are subject to these policies, yet I remain unsure as to how I should apply these. Can I clarify, please

Q: Is Foundation Mission funding subject to

  1. Strict No Sale, as per Gov Growth Grants
  2. 12 Month Lock Up, as per Gov Builders Grants
  3. Both Lock Up & No Sale

I have searched for information on the Partner Fund and found only a mention in the docs Is there additional information you could link to?

2 Likes

Yes, Foundation Missions and Proposed Missions are both subject to the same grant policies. For all user incentive / growth grants, the no-sale policy applies. For any builders grants (which should constitute the majority of Missions), the one-year lock-up applies. After the one-year lock-up, builders may use the tokens at their discretion.

1 Like

Hello! This also applies for the RetroPGF grants?

3 Likes

Updated to provide clarification around effective sales, the Foundation’s ability to enforce these policies, and the exemption of RetroPGF grants from these policies.

2 Likes

Updated on 2/9/24 2/9/24, to reflect changes approved in Proposal to Reclassify Grant Misusage Enforcement.

Change log

  • Labeled violation 1f) as such
  • Clarified the Token House Code of Conduct Council will process violations of the grant policies, including failure to meet critical milestones (grant clawback)

Thanks for the insightful explanation

Great to see the Lock-Up clause and requirements, maintaining an avenue for healthy token growth, also one other way to protect the ecosystem.

Cool you are the best team thanks

Updated to:

  • Remove reporting requirements that are no longer applicable
  • Specify the Grants Council will process violations of the Grant Policies, subject to optimistic approval by the Token House (more details on this change will be provided during the Reflection Period.)
  • Define the change process
  • Add “Grants to Other OP Chains” section
2 Likes

What is the purpose of “OP request for User Incentives” field?

Is not it related to sale of the OP tokens ?

hai @pfedprog The goal of the Optimism Request for User Incentives is to encourage adoption of the Optimism ecosystem by offering incentives to users. This program aims to support projects or applications that drive more activity, enhance user engagement, and strengthen the community and infrastructure within the Optimism network

But I was just told I can not offer incentives. This makes no sense. CharmVerse - The Network for Onchain Communities


@Megalod @katie

Distribution is probably the main thing that matters here?

Can I use the funds to create a database server or pay developers an incentive to work better?

I am not sure about the policy that is why I am asking. So far I have completely downgraded it to 0.

GM @pfedprog! You can find more information about our grant policies here and here. If you have any questions related to the Grants Council, I recommend asking in the Discord channel Mission Grants :bow_and_arrow: or joining the next Grants Council Office Hours. You can find the link in the Governance Calendar—it’s held every Monday at 16:00 UTC.

2 Likes

Hey @pfedprog ,

From my understanding user incentives imply, using the OP token amount to incentivize/attract users to your protocol. For example, reward them when they interact with a contract or complete a ‘xyz’ task.

I have seen DeFi protocols use it for rewarding bridging, locking, swapping, etc.

Paying your workers is omitted here and I assume interviewees are a bit too easy to game and to hard to track.

Hope this helps,

Bless, 0xR

2 Likes