[FINAL] Season 4: Council Intent Budget Proposal

S4 Intent: Innovate on Novel Applications (Intent 2)

Please explain how the Council will help accomplish its Intent:

  • The Grants Council will fulfill its intent to Innovate on novel applications by:
    • Processing proposals and evaluating which grant proposals best further the intent of innovating on novel applications
    • Articulating operating procedures that optimize for achieving the S4 Intent
    • Drafting and publishing requests for grants (RFGs) that better enable the Optimism ecosystem’s ability to foster innovative applications as well as other core needs for the Optimism ecosystem

Council Charter:

Please outline major proposed changes below:

  • Adding

    • New goals for Builders and Experiments sub-committees in line with S4 intent
    • RFG line of grants
    • Specialized positions for 3 elected reviewers: operations, comms, RFG managers
    • Procedures for projects that apply for multiple grants
  • Updating

    • Budgets for two sub-committees (1M builders; 2M Experiments)
    • 2M budget for RFGs
  • Eliminating

    • Specific time requirements for Council members, replaced with provision that permits reviewers and lead to be removed for non-performance

Breakdown of Intent Budget:

  • Council Budget: 285k OP

    • 9 Reviewers = 25,000 OP (+10k from Season 3)
    • Comms, Ops, RPGF managers (additional 5k OP per manager)
    • 1 Lead = 35,000 OP (unchanged from Season 3); in addition, 10k OP for preparation work in the weeks between Season 3 and Season 4
  • Operating budget (requires USDC): 12.5k USDC

    • Notion or other front-end / CRM = up to 1,500 USDC
    • Landing page improvement = up to 1,000 USDC
    • General expenses = up to 1,000 USDC
    • Reimbursement of up to $1k of LLC formation expenses for reviewers who so choose = up to 9,000 USDC
    • All expenses must be documented and submitted (sans personal information) on the forum for transparency prior to release of USDC. Any unused USDC reverts to the Foundation.
    • Any service providers will be selected by the operations manager

How should Token House delegates measure the Council’s progress towards its Intent:

  • Benchmark Milestone 1 (please include expected completion date for each)
    • Process 100 grant proposals by the end of Cycle 13
  • Benchmark Milestone 2 (please include expected completion date for each)
    • Response rate of 100% - each proposal gets a response from a reviewer (Cycles 12 + 13)
  • Benchmark Milestone 3 (please include expected completion date for each)
    • Publish 10 RFGs by June 10
  • Benchmark Milestone 4 (please include expected completion date for each)
    • Publish rubrics for both sub-committees before the beginning of Cycle 12 and 13 preliminary review
  • Benchmark Milestone 5 (please include expected completion date for each)
    • Respond to milestone completion submissions within 10 days of grantees posting updates

How should badgeholders measure the Council’s impact?

  • KPI 1
    • NPS score from successful proposers of > 6
  • KPI 2
    • Twice per cycle reports on the status of grants (roundups for final grant consideration and final grant awards)
  • KPI 3
    • Response rate to delegate questions
  • KPI 4
    • Publish scoring forms within 1 week of each Cycle end
  • KPI 5
    • Provide milestone completion summaries to the community for each Cycle

Season 3 Remarks

Season 3 was the inaugural season of the Grants Council. The Council reviewed more than 150 proposals. Feedback has been that the Council was broadly seen as a meaningful improvement to the pre-existing grants process. For instance, the Foundation reached out to the successful proposers in Cycle 10 and found that the Council process had an NPS of 9.2 out of 10. The Council has received feedback that it is setting a higher bar for grants programs in general with an emphasis on transparency and efficiency. If you would like to review the outcomes of Season 3, you can find more in the Cycle 10 Grants Review Roundup and the Cycle 11 Grants Review Roundup. It was a pleasure to work to improve the grants process in Season 3 and hopefully again in Season 4.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #37 by linda] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


As an Optimism delegate with voting power above the required threshold I believe this proposal is ready for vote. Delegate Commitments - #71 by MoneyManDoug


Formal words:

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

And just to add on top of this:

I think the process of the grants process is 5x better now than the previous voting on snapshot. The Grants Council is doing a good job at managing their budget and creating a clear process for projects that want to grow the Optimism ecosystem.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

In general I’m a huge fan of the work that’s been done by this group and I’m excited to see it moving forward again!


Hey Dane, thanks for organizing this updated Grant’s structure.

A quick question about the following line:

Did you mean RPGFs? If not, would you be able to clarify this abbreviation.

As for the ‘Builder’ allocation - it seems to be a 17% growth compared to last season.

How was this allocation decided? Does this reflect more demand for builder grants vs. growth?

Thanks again, Dane - and to the delegates who elevated this to the next stage! Excited to see it progress.


Thanks for the question. RFGs are “Requests for Grants”. The idea is to publish requests tailored to specific needs in the Optimism ecosystem based on community feedback as to what is needed. For instance, if the Council determines that there is a significant need for oracles, identity solutions, audit services, etc., the Council can publish a request for projects to apply for grants specifically tailored to those needs.

You are right that Builders is proposed to be increased. In the last Season, there was a heightened focus on developers within the builders category and in this Season there are co-equal goals of furthering projects that maximize developers of novel applications as well as builders who may not be maximizing the presence of developers but who are putting forward proposals that can nonetheless further the mission of building novel applications. It is worth noting that the Council would not be encouraged to run through the budget for the sake of running through the budget: if there are not sufficient meritorious projects to substantiate the budget allocation, the surplus would revert. I believe this was the case in Season 3. The increased allocation is intended to be mission-enhancing, but it should be seen as “up to 1M” rather than “certainly 1M”.


Are managers decided by the lead once reviewers are elected by vote?

Maybe we can add one more KPI “Weekly open meeting with at least one representative from each subcommittee”?


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote!


Yes to question 1. The proposed charter clarifies that. On the KPIs, that is a reasonable suggestion. I would expect that if the Council is approved, once reviewers are selected, the Council would update the “Achieving Aims” post to include KPIs based on reflection and preparation.


Я делегат оптимизма и готов к голосованию


Я делегат оптимизма и буду голосовать

1 Like

Can the council please clarify what the annualised cost here is please for both total budget and roles in OP and USD equivalent?

Has the council begun to consider how your work could be effectively distrubuted to recognise and reward a more broad sector of governance participants to aid diversity and expand specialist expertise?

I raise this because it could enable and inventivise protocol delegates to actively contribute their area of expertise to collective governance and ecosystem growth and address issues identified by @Oxytocin here

In future seasons, under a distributed model the council could reduce it’s focus to 1) identifying and developing Requests for Grants and 2) developing and documenting frameworks, best practice and policies through which to 3) empower and reward specialist ‘alliances’ to respond to, assess, approve and report on the grants funding distribution

1 Like

As an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power, I’d like to approve this post for vote.

I know I’m late but I finally have sufficient voting power and I wanted to add my approval to the chorus, haha. :slight_smile: :sparkles: :red_circle:


@danelund.eth in addition to my question about annualised costs

Can you please link me to the Token House Review of Season 3 as outlined in the Council Notion on Achieving Aims

1 Like

A couple of important points to clarify and consider:

OP is a governance token. 1 OP = 1 OP, it’s not appropriate to equate rewards to USD terms as the primary purpose of distributing these rewards is value alignment.

Budgets are very intentionally not annualized and must be reassessed each Season. Delegates should evaluate whether the proposed budget is sufficient and reasonable to accomplish the goals outlined for the next Season. The Council may or may not be renewed next Season, and so funding should not be assumed to persist indefinitely.

One of the primary purposes of the Governance Fund is to bootstrap a reliable market for RetroPGF so that much of the work currently supported by the Governance Fund can be supported via RetroPGF in the future. The Governance Fund is not expected to persist indefinitely either.


Have several other questions/queries too, which may have already been answered as the documentation led me to understand that the Council was subject to end of S3 review.

Q1. Was a S3 review delivered, as per the opening para of the Council Notion on Achieving Aims?

Q2. Is it correct to understand that this documentation was established by @danelund.eth as a Charted checks on authority and administrative responsibility as Council Lead?

Q3. Is it reasonable to expect that Council Notion section on Achieving Aim - including a S3 review - was created in consultation with Council members?

Q4. Is it reasonable to expect that this proposal was developed via a working relationship with Council members?

1 Like