Cycle 15 - Grants Preliminary Roundup

The Cycle 15 Preliminary Review has concluded. With the conclusion of regular submissions and preliminary review, it is clear that the heightened interest in building on Optimism has been sustained throughout Season 4. The Council received 306 total Experiments and Builders proposals in Season 4, 104 in Cycle 15.

The future is Optimistic.

This Cycle, we want to take a moment to appreciate the quality of the community building on Optimism. We have seen strong engagement from builders and community members and, as a result, we continue to see proposers increase the quality of what they propose. We believe we are seeing a virtuous cycle take hold: high expectations bring great builders who then attract more great builders and community members to the Optimism ecosystem. We appreciate all of the engagement and hope the trend continues.

This Cycle, the Council will complete its review of eight published Requests for Grants (RFGs). We have seen more than 30 new RFG proposals so far this Cycle. If you are planning to submit an RFG, please make sure it is submitted on CharmVerse before 19:00 GMT on September 14.

Here is the list of projects that will be reviewed for the Cycle 15 Final Review:



Cycle 15 Preliminary Roundup

Of the 104 proposals received for Cycle 14:

  • 54 were for Builders Grants, and
  • 50 were for for Experiments Grants

Of the initial proposals:

  • 51 proposals passed Intake Filter for Builders (~94% pass rate)
  • 29 proposals passed Intake Filter for Experiments (~58% pass rate);

Cycle 15 saw Builders proposals overtake Experiments proposals again. This is exciting from the lens of the goal of Intent 2, which is to focus on Innovating on Novel Applications. The Council is hopeful that the heightened Builders interest will lead to the development of strong applications for the community. The difference in the pass rate between the two Sub-Committees is indicative of the higher bar presented by the no-sale rule in Experiments as well as a number of proposals that were incomplete or underdeveloped.

The percentage of projects that passed the Intake Filter and have passed to the Final Review has decreased to ~43% from 50% in Cycle 10. This is the result of a more selective round for Experiments and the increased Intake Filter passage rate for Builders projects.

Requests for Grants (RFGs)

The Grants Council has published eight Requests for Grants (RFGs) for Season 4. The Council will announce the results of the RFGs at the end of Cycle 15.

The Council looks forward to reviewing the remainder of the Cycle 15 proposals and thanks all proposers for taking the time to submit their proposals and engage in the process.


How would I know if my project was reviewed?

1 Like

All the projects have been reviewed for cycle 15. If you do not see it here you’ll want to plan for resubmitting your proposal in the future.

3 quick comments

  • Sharing these RFGs is great & makes specific dev/growth goals more likely
  • Interesting to see so many Builder grant proposals from new ecosystem teams - asking for comparably small amounts vs growth experiments.
  • Slighly disappointing to see mainly the same teams apply for growth experiments over & over.

It’s totally fair for teams to apply for grants multiple times. We just keep looking for smaller experiments to figure out where LTV > CAC and strongly believe there could be many good experiments run w/ 10K Op.

1 Like

Would like to eco this. Seems like we are burning fuel just to keep the flame alive.

1 Like

Maybe I’m a little disappointed because I have been rejected for the second time, but I have the feeling that these grants are considering only projects that are multichain, to make sure OP is on the supported network and is not left outside.

Projects that are valid, have been developed for many months, and are looking for an ecosystem that will accept them with small grants, are not considered just because they don’t have any KPI/TVL to show.

Enormous grants are given to projects that are not investing in the OP ecosystem but are just putting chains in competition between them.

1 Like

Don’t be upset…
We have been a part of the Governance for quite some time prior to applying for a grant.

Also shot down in cycle 14 & 15

We have an amazing development team, who I am proud to have put together.

Recipients of retro PGF in the last round.

Of course, taking the funds and giving them to our developers so they can build a platform on Optimism that is sybil resistant, highlights other impact makers, and has reiterated the structure of retroactive funding for the users of the platform contributing to the ecosystem.

Working together with other educational and security leaders in the web3 space for platform integration prior to launch.

Reiterating the ethos public goods, no matter where we go.

Constantly advocating for public goods, and other networks such as Gitcoin on social media.

On boarding new users, and educating people about the ecosystem.

Contributing directly to the public goods fund from our personal projects.

Encouraging others to contribute to the public goods fund with their own personal projects.

Aligning with the ecosystem, every step of the way.

Of course, some extra funding would be great. It would really give our project a boost of morale for the development team.

Without the incentive to build on the network over the next 6 to 12 months, we are having to take alternative opportunities to create the draw to the network for our core team.

The network has shifted over the past 6 to 12 months from the prepubescent stage it was once in. So we understand the direction and the growth that the development teams and the governance are striving to achieve.

My suggestion is that the grant council gets much needed relief from other delegates in the ecosystem who are willing to step up to the plate and help with the review and intake filter process. Personally, I couldn’t imagine having to review that many proposals at once without missing some crucial details.

It would also help to alleviate any sort of biased decision making further decentralizing the process of governance with the grant proposal system.

Sure, I understand that there is a lot of complexity in an ambitious project like Optimism, and processes are evolving at every iteration. I hope for Optimism, the strategy will work in the long run.

We will launch our project on a different chain where they have demonstrated more interest in experimenting with solutions to real-world needs rather than rewarding projects that are taking advantage of the chain’s competition.

1 Like