Council Dissolution Proposal: Dissolve the Grants Council

Proposals šŸ“ƒ
1

As outlined in the Operating Manual, a persistent Council is expected to continue into the next Season unless a Dissolution proposal is approved. As outlined in Guide to Season 9, the Foundation is proposing the dissolution of the Grants Council.

This proposal is not related to the dedication, intentions, or contributions of Council members. We thank all former and current Grants Council members for their contributions to the Collective over the years, theyā€™ve played a very valuable role in our experimentation with decentralized capital allocation.

Name of Council or Board: Grants Council

Current Charter: OPerating-manual/Grants Council Charter v0.1.md at main Ā· ethereum-optimism/OPerating-manual Ā· GitHub

Reason for Dissolution Proposal:
The Grants Council was established under the Council and Board Framework to review and approve grants applications across the Collective. After multiple seasons of operation, the Foundation has assessed that the current structure creates coordination friction without proportional benefit to grantees or the broader ecosystem.

Over the past three years, Optimism has experimented with ways to organize, fund, and align our efforts to build and grow the Superchain. Weā€™ve run experiments evaluating the following:

  • Community-led capital allocation aimed at fueling user growth, supporting developer adoption, and winning customers.

  • Community contributions via Mission Requests and a public core development process.

  • Public goods funding aimed at discovering how Optimism might accurately fund positive impact to support a growing ecosystem.

What weā€™ve learned is that attempting to coordinate a disparate set of teams and organizations results in loss of shared context and less efficient operating structures, and also does not meaningfully increase decentralization where it matters.

There is a lot of governance overhead associated with Councils (running elections, onboarding members, operating budgets, etc.) and we have not found the benefits of the Grants Council to offset those costs. We believe those costs only make sense when there is a strong reason that a function being fulfilled by an independent group of people meaningfully increases decentralization where it matters most (ie. the Security Council.) Weā€™ve also decided to pause Retro Funding, the Foundationā€™s own community focused grant program, due to a similar cost/benefit analysis.

As a result, the Foundation is proposing the dissolution of the Grants Council.Over time, the Optimism Collective has operated with an increasingly complex Council and Board structure that was designed to distribute governance responsibilities during an earlier phase of the Collectiveā€™s development. As the Collective matures, the Foundation is proposing a series of changes to reduce structural overhead, streamline decision-making, and improve the speed and quality of grants deployment. Dissolving any non-mission critical Councils, such as the Grants Council, is a necessary step toward that streamlined vision.

The Foundation will continue to make select strategic grants, as necessary, in pursuing the OP Enterprise strategy. As in a public company, the primary role of governance becomes holding the Foundation accountable in making these grants. Unlike the original vision of DAOs, the role of governance will not be to allocate capital directly but rather to ensure those entrusted with this responsibility (the Foundation) perform well.

We thank all members of the Grants Council, from Season 3-9 for your contributions in this ongoing experiment. Youā€™ve played an important role in the evolution of the Collectiveā€™s understanding of accountable capital allocation.

Action Required

Token House delegates are asked to vote For or Against the formal dissolution of the Grants Council.The Citizensā€™ House will not vote as it has been temporarily paused.

A ā€œForā€ vote approves dissolution of the Grants Council, effective immediately. In the case of an ā€œAgainstā€ vote, a prospective Lead would need to propose a budget in the next voting cycle and recruit candidates to nominate themselves to be members. The Foundation will not provide operational support or facilitate coordination with core teams.

Proposals by the Foundation donā€™t require delegate approvals. If this proposal is approved, it will supersede any documentation referencing the Council and the Council will be dissolved effective immediately. The Foundation will work with the Council to complete offboarding, as needed.

1 Like
Council Dissolution Proposal: Dissolve the Milestones and Metrics Council
6

I agree with the Foundationā€™s diagnosis that the current Grants Council structure has created coordination overhead and may no longer justify its full operational footprint. However, I do not think full dissolution is the best next step. A lighter hybrid model could preserve community accountability and institutional continuity while addressing the exact inefficiencies identified in this proposal.

Instead of removing the Council entirely, I suggest narrowing its mandate to oversight, exception review, and periodic accountability reporting, while allowing the Foundation to continue leading strategic grant deployment. This would reduce election and operating burden, maintain governance legitimacy, and avoid the reputational cost of appearing to fully step back from community-involved capital allocation.

In my view, the issue is not that the Council exists, but that its current scope is too broad for the value it delivers. A leaner council with a clear sunset review would better balance efficiency, accountability, and the Collectiveā€™s long-term decentralization credibility. @system

7

Will be good to understand if this will also dissolve Milestone and Metrics that was part of GC at some point but they arenā€™t and that still have some work to do on the grants milestone verification and grant delivery front.

1 Like
8

Thanks for raising this, Gonna. From my reading, the proposal is silent on how Milestones & Metrics and pending verification work will be handled post-dissolution. In line with my earlier comment, Iā€™d strongly prefer we explicitly clarify whether a lean oversight function (covering milestones, metrics, and exception review) will persist, instead of fully sunsetting these responsibilities alongside the Grants Council. @Gonna.eth

9

@Gonna.eth @MconnectDAO Thanks for the callout. Please note that dissolving the Milestones & Metrics Committee is a seperate proposal in this voting cycle.

1 Like
10

The following reflects the views of L2BEATā€™s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.

We voted ABSTAIN

The dissolution of the Grants Council is perhaps the most significant step in this current wave of changes. We are realistic about the fact that the Foundation has always held the ultimate power in Optimism, so we are under no illusions about where control lies. However, systematically dismantling these community structures to formalize that control feels like it kills the very spirit of what decentralized governance is supposed to be.

Even if the power balance was never equal, the Grants Council gave the community a voice and a seat at the table. Completely phasing it out, rather than finding ways to improve it, sends a discouraging message to the ecosystem. While we understand the operational drive toward a Foundation led model, we cannot actively vote to rubber stamp a transition that replaces community involvement with centralized decision making.

At the same time, voting against this proposal would not be pragmatic. A community led council cannot function without the backing and funding of the Foundation, and forcing its continuation under these circumstances would only lead to friction. We recognize this operational reality, which is why we chose to abstain.

2 Likes