Season 5 has been a pivotal stress test for our Grants Program, especially with the Mission Requests Program. Despite facing significant challenges, the Grants Council has demonstrated remarkable adaptability and resilience, refining our review process to accommodate a surge in applications.
Compared to Season 4 (306 applications) which saw a 34% increase in applications over Season 3, Season 5 experienced an astonishing 73.2% growth. We received a total of 530 Mission Request applications, along with 23 corresponding to Audit Requests from elected Service Providers.
Notably, the loss of a Builders Subcommittee Member occurred when one member had to step down to be appointed as Lead. Despite this transition, the Grants Council swiftly adapted, continuing operations with one less member in the Builders Subcommittee while redistributing responsibilities to ensure the efficiency of our review process.
Furthermore, each subcommittee refined Rubrics tailored to the specific goals of each Intent, resulting in 8 Rubrics applied to 27 Mission Requests. These Rubrics were incorporated into the form templates to guide Applicants during the Submission Process, made possible by the Charmverse platform.
Throughout these challenges, the Council scaled its processes effectively to meet the growing demand for Optimism Grants. Reviewers have adeptly balanced providing robust evaluations with efficiency to manage the substantial increase in workload.
Now, itās time to conclude the Grants Council review process for Season 5. Here it is the list of Finalists for Cycle 22 (Detailed list):
The Council has observed a consistent increase in the professionalism of Applications and their Applicants, particularly during the Second Round of Submissions. Applicants demonstrated a strong commitment to understanding the grant process, while the Council dedicated significant efforts to ensure a high-functioning process. Throughout the entire Season 5, the Council has not found it necessary to utilize the Proposer Conduct portion of the Sub-Committee Rubrics. This reflects the belief that setting high expectations for Applications results in Applicants meeting those expectations.
Cycle 22 kept the selectiveness percentage almost the same as Season 4 (~22.1%). Relative to the initial set of Applications, 24.5% became finalists.
The Cycle 22 Finalists represent proposed grants of ~4.56M OP. In total, recommended grants for Season 5 amount to ~7.12M OP. While the Council proposed a higher allocation for grants through a proposal to change the use of rewards designated (but unused) for other intents, the Council expects the surplus of 1.87M OP that had been approved by the Token House to be returned to the Gov Fund.
The Council has truly enjoyed working towards making Optimism the top destination for builders. We genuinely hope that our efforts will help the community achieve its goals.
Finalists, stay tuned for a message from the Foundation regarding KYC details.
Stay optimistic!
*The conferral of a grant is not an explicit or implicit promotion or endorsement of the projects, their representations, or their underlying products but rather an acknowledgment that the projectsā applications were deemed most suited to receive a grant given the parameters applied by the mandate of Season 5 governance. Grantees accept grants subject to terms, including those outlined in the Internal Operating Procedures.
Season 5, personally it was a season marked by full learning about governance, feedback process and products at web3. It was a pretty good process because I could and still have the support of many optimistic delegates who continue to support me in my journey as a delegate, specially thanks to @brichis and @Joxes for your good willingness to help me understand many things about OptimismGov.
I join in congratulating the OP team for the great work they do every day to keep this growing!
The superchain is in our vein! for more achievements come.
Season 5 is over, and we are now entering a reflection period. I am optimistic that The Foundation will unveil numerous changes and innovative ideas for Season 6. I anticipate the return of the Grants Council in the upcoming season, with new members. As Season 5 applications have concluded, prospective applicants will need to await further updates for the forthcoming season.
GM! First, you did a great job! Youāre definitely one of the best teams Iāve ever seen in web3. I have a question, thoughāIām a bit confused about this sentence Is there a reason not to use it? Since it was approved and there was demand, Iām not sure if Iām misunderstanding something. Thanks!
Had my grant which had a budget at 50k, which was requested to be 50k to fit other grants, was the highest scored in pre score, still top 3 in final score, didnt get funded with 50k left. All got was ā The grants council did not consider this project to be properly fulfilling the mission request.ā with 0 comment before. Tried to also ask about it, same kinda vibe. cut off was 35, highest 99, we got 85?
Conjure
Conjure - Revenue Sources for RetroPGF
85
https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/conjure-revenue-sources-for-retropgf-4062405315313822
In Progress
EntityDAO
76
https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/entitydao-0765293588038709
In Progress
Glo Dollar - upgrade to funding RetroPGF
97
https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/page-20626850753304682
In Progress
Opti.domains RetroPGF Revenue Sharing
75
https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/page-19086124521748693
In Progress
Velodrome Finance - Revenue Sources for RPGF
99
https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/velodrome-finance-revenue-sources-for-rpgf-6072245109137893
In Progress
`Additional Revenue Sources to Fund RetroPGF Rounds https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-additional-revenue-sources-to-fund-retropgf-rounds/7434?u=brichis 150000
Glo Dollar - upgrade to funding RetroPGF https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/page-20626850753304682 50000
Velodrome Finance - Revenue Sources for RPGF https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/velodrome-finance-revenue-sources-for-rpgf-6072245109137893 50000
Total requested 100000 Budget left 50000
Have had direct problems with 1 reviewer who are a top 3 del on arb, huge coi, one tried to change a grant after approval.
Btw OPs the main place am building but the shitshow happening lately kinda has made me want to just drop to other L2s. for ref shit have built in the last 1y alone, most are OP/base only. Solo. https://addrs.to/pay
The Grants Council holds the authority to recommend the allocation of the entire budget, although itās not mandatory. After reviewing and ranking the applications, the council determines the cut-off based on the mission request requirements and available budget. This cut-off isnāt necessarily tied to exhausting the budget entirely; rather, itās about selecting the applications that best fulfill the mission request within the allocated resources. Sometimes, the budget dictates where the line is drawn, while at other times, itās the councilās discretion based on their assessment of the applications and the fulfillment of the mission objectives.
So a project can meet 2x the cut off, based on a set score system, be within .1x of others but just not get filled based on vibes? Like sure garbage shouldnt get grants but garbage then should not score 2x the min set score. Why even have cut off, or set score system.
While the Grants Council utilizes the ranking to draw the finalistās line, itās important to note that itās not solely determined by the cutoff score. Often, thereās a narrow margin, sometimes as little as one point, between a finalist and a non-finalist application. Budget constraints predominantly influence this cutoff, with the available resources shaping the decision-making process. Additionally, the Developer Advisory Board holds the authority to veto an Intent 1 application, adding another layer to the selection process. Moreover, there are instances where the Grants Council may deem an application as not fully fulfilling the mission request, further influencing their decision.
We conduct thorough examinations of final applications, delving deep into various aspects. This includes scrutinizing team connections, assessing project adoption if itās already deployed, and conducting an in-depth analysis of the projectās GitHub activity. We strive to gauge the projectās longevity, impact, and relevance, with particular attention to the level of activity and engagement on GitHub. Throughout this process, we meticulously observe both positive and negative indicators that aid us in determining whether the project is promising or potentially a dead end. The subcommittee engages in extensive debates, weighing the pros and cons of each application until we reach a well-considered decision.
So then what was the reason for Conjure not getting filled? Wasnt budget. Wasnt adoption since not deployed but neither are the other one. GitHub activity has both the front end and contracts that itll be based on as well as audit so clear can do it. Only option left seems like a personal bias right?
āscrutinizing team connectionsā yet one reviewer are a top arb del, with others directly in lead for projects that had 3 grants go through?
āthorough examinations of final applications, delving deep into various aspectsā, āWe strive to gauge the projectās longevity, impact, and relevance, with particular attention to the level of activity and engagement on GitHub. Throughout this process, we meticulously observe both positive and negative indicators that aid us in determining whether the project is promising or potentially a dead endā, thats what the scores for right? what are u even checking in the score then
I understand your concern about potential bias. However, I want to assure you that the individual you mentioned abstained from providing an opinion during the evaluation of Conjure to maintain impartiality and fairness. Our goal is to make decisions based solely on the merits of each application.
While we strive for fairness and objectivity, itās true that conflicts or negative experiences with individuals can accumulate over time, impacting perceptions and decisions. Itās essential for us to address and resolve any issues promptly to maintain the integrity of our process.
I encourage you to continue providing feedback and raising concerns. Open communication is vital for us to improve and ensure the effectiveness of our grant allocation process.
So personal bias affected the grant getting filled not the actual grant itself, any obj score. That then assumes that some grants where reviewers are friends/work with others from projects they may be more likely to get grants not based on the grant but again by relationship? While others not? Maybe like a project where a reviewer has a lead role even though not voting on that grant secures 3 grants. Still didnt actually get a reason btw, just āOur goal is to make decisions based solely on the merits of each application.ā, while obviously not following the actual score.
what was the reason for Conjure not getting filled?
Interesting we seem to have received criticism from a grant council member about any activity on Arbitrum related to our ecosystem.
We ditched any plans to show our commitment to OP eco but apparently that didnāt cut it.
It seems ironic because it is also a member of the Arb ecosystem that is making these comments questioning our commitment to building on Optimism after deployment of our first smart contract 2 years ago in May of 2022 before joining the NFT & Gaming committee prior to the bicameral governance process.
We were also denied from the grants cycle after passing the rubric score with 0 comments or feedback which seemed really odd. So we asked about it last week but the grants council didnāt reply or say anything besides responding that this cycle is closed and there is no information on the next season for grantees that didnāt get chosen for the finalists.
Itās kind of crazy to think we started on this journey almost 9 months ago when originally submitting our grant last summer. By the time season 6 is here it will be a full year of attempting to get our grant proposal approved so I hope other new builders who are coming into the ecosystem are prepared for an extra long term commitment. I know we are but surely didnāt expect this type of opposition to our mission which has involved bringing builders from the Gitcoin ecosystem to Optimism and Base.
We hope that creating our own grant funding programs & platform will not be left out because of budget constraints in the future but right now itās not exactly clear on what happened with this cycle.
I understand your concerns, and I appreciate your commitment to ensuring fairness in our grant election process. Itās crucial for us to address any perception of bias or favoritism to maintain the integrity of our evaluations.
Regarding your point about personal bias potentially affecting grant decisions, I want to emphasize that our goal is always to base decisions solely on the merits of each application, as outlined in our objective scoring criteria. While conflicts or negative experiences with individuals can certainly influence perceptions (we are human after all), itās essential to recognize that such issues are not indicative of systemic bias within the group.
When someone experiences problems with several individuals in a group, itās more a reflection of that individualās issues rather than an inherent issue with the group itself. However, itās essential for us to address and resolve any conflicts promptly to ensure fairness and objectivity in our evaluations.
As for the specific reason for Conjure not being finalist, I apologize for any lack of clarity in my final communication. I assure you that the decision was made based on a comprehensive evaluation of the application against our criteria, including budget considerations, adoption status, GitHub activity, and overall project feasibility. My assessment, I am not a reviewer and did not score Conjure but I was a builders reviewer in the past, is that Conjure operates as a white-label solution of the well-established project called Synthetix. Given its inception in 2021 and no further activity after that on GitHub and its nature as a competitor to a prominent and well-established project within the ecosystem, it may not be strategically viable to grant an application that competes directly in this space at this juncture.
Your feedback is valuable to us, and weāre committed to addressing any concerns you may have to improve our process. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or suggestions.
Thank you for your message. We understand your concern about the lack of feedback on your grant application. While providing feedback isnāt mandatory for the Grants Council we try our best and due to the volume of applications received, weāre actively working on improving our processes for the next cycle. So far of 530 applications, we have 2 claims of poor feedback.
I understand your frustration, and Iāve been in a similar situation. Itās worth noting that for Season 5, the Grants Councilās focus is exclusively on OP Mainnet missions. I spent six months navigating the grant process when the collective first began, and it was a learning experience of aligning my project with the collectiveās needs.
A grant program doesnāt align with any of the mission requests of Season 5 and presents many challenges, particularly regarding the lock period or the no-sale rule. I will certainly take these factors into account If I get elected as lead and plan the grants council design for the next season.
I want to emphasize that our goal is always to base decisions solely on the merits of each application, as outlined in our objective scoring criteria. Then the score should have been much lower right otherwise why have a score? Clearly not the case since score was so close yet didnt get in.
itās essential to recognize that such issues are not indicative of systemic bias within the group.
not the case if the group are either friends, have a mutual interest, have a mutual benefit or have mutual values in which case problems could easily be systemic, ie, I publicly called out a very well known group (thales) for a complete shitshow of a mission req trying to extract like 500k OP for 2w of dev, which u muted me for being so direct on them because they are a large player in the space, interesting that u mention Synthetix because -they- are very, very close to that team, as are atleast 1 other reviewer, and your own personal wallet gets funded by ethernaut interestingly with SNX as 2nd largest holding, to which yes this would compete but is not just a fork since allows creation of any asset on the fly, not just minting assets. Would competition not be good for the space?
including budget considerations
the project had a score of 85 at 100k OP and was 85 after being lowered to 50k so clearly that didnt affect it either. GitHub activity cant be a reason because the whole grants to completely redesign it not use the current protocol or continue a current project, but the oracle infra it would use def was active.
for more achievements come. 
Is there a reason not to use it? Since it was approved and there was demand, Iām not sure if Iām misunderstanding something. Thanks!
we seem to have received criticism from a grant council member about any activity on Arbitrum related to our ecosystem.