Grants Council Operating Budget for Season 8 and 9

Elected Representatives đź’Ľ
,
1

Proposed Council Lead: Gonna.eth
Proposed Operating Budget: Budget: 980.000 OP for both S8 and S9.

  • 490,000 OP per Season (+100.000 OP compared to S7)

Contact Info: gdhannte@gmail.com

Previous Work and Qualifications

Community Contributions:

Relevant Work Experience:

  • Delegate since OP governance inception.
  • Member of the first committee.
  • Grants Council Reviewer during Season 3.
  • Reviewer and Ops Manager during Season 4 and Season 5.
  • Appointed Grants Council Lead for Season 5
  • Elected Grants Council lead for Season 6 and Season 7.
  • Govnerd in Season 5.
  • Govnerd Maintainer in Season 6.
  • Active participant in RetroPGF processes:
    • Bagholder since RetroPGF 2.
    • Consistently voted on every Retro Funding.

Council Charter here

Breakdown of Council Operating Budget

Member Stipends per season [unlocked, superfluid streams]:

  • Lead (1): 100.000 OP per season
  • Operations Specialist (1): 50.000 OP per season
  • Final Reviewers (4): 75.000 OP per season
  • Total: 450.000 per season

In depth breakdown worksheet here

Operating budget (locked for one year): 39.000 OP per season

Retroactive budget (locked for one year): none

Multisig Management (unlocked): 1000 OP per season

How should governance participants asses impact

User Experience KPI

  1. Net Promoter Score (NPS): Maintain or exceed a 8/10 satisfaction score among grant finalists (achieved 8.8 in Season 7).

  2. TVL Growth:

  • Baseline Goal: 8500 ETH Interoperable TVL

Using the Council Impact Analysis median 3.67$/OP (going to 4$ for everyone’s sanity and to push median 10% higher) and the budget of 6.33M OP proposed here. That is 25.32M in TVL or 8500 ETH

  1. Quality Applicants Supported:
  • Ensure fewer than 5% of qualified applicants are “unable to be supported” due to operational limitations.

Performance KPI

  1. Cycle Reports: Publish detailed reports for each review cycle summarizing:
  • Number of applications reviewed.
  • TVL metrics driven by approved grants.
  1. End-of-Season Retrospective: Assess the impact of grants awarded on Superchain TVL growth and provide recommendations for future improvements.

Consistent with other reward allocations, all rewards will be subject to KYC and claims flow process.

5 Likes
2

We are an Optimism Delegate with sufficient voting power, and we believe this proposal is ready to move forward to voting.

1 Like
3

I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and I am an Optimism Top 100 delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote

4

On behalf of the Budget Board—thank you for the Season 8–9 Grants Council budget. We are overall supportive of this budget.

  • The 490 k OP per‑season cost increase is measured and keeps compensation proportional.
  • Workload has risen, making the staffing level reasonable.
  • Grants remain the primary engine for onboarding net‑new projects, and your KPI targets provide clear accountability.

Before the vote, could you briefly address the following:

  • Can the Council sustain current quality and throughput if the operating team were reduced, or is the full head‑count essential?
  • Should a portion of the budget be reserved for retroactive rewards to reinforce long‑term incentives?
  • Does the compensation split between the lead and reviewers feel balanced, or should the ratio be revisited?
  • Is an operations stipend of 125 k OP justified by workload and market benchmarks?
  • How does the efficiency gain per reviewer compare to the overall increase in reviewer compensation?

A concise response on these points will help delegates cast informed votes.

5

Retroactive rewards are much weaker incentives than base compensation or performance-based pay if they become locked or vesting. They are an unearned windfall at best, and a disappointing de minimis at worst.

We would not favor retroactive rewards for any council if they are denominated in OP. Work by governance has little effect on OP value, except to the extent that financing activities solely with OP reduces the value.

Given the unwillingness or inability to support tangible value accrual to OP token - either through distributions or through direct, disintermediated control of sequencer revenues for reinvestment in the project - it is pointless to try to align governance participants to the long-term price of the OP token.

While payment in OP is perfectly reasonable, any retroactive rewards meant to be delivered months after voting upon them should be denominated in dollars, ETH, or both.

More generally, a plan to use financing sources other than only OP dilution for governance activities is needed before Season 9.

We will cross post this opinion to other relevant budget threads for visibility.

1 Like
6

In S8, the full headcount remains essential because this is a transitional season. AI will reduce workload somewhat, but reviewers must validate AI outputs and ensure no degradation in applicant experience while the system matures. Cutting headcount prematurely could undermine trust in the Council and risk overlooking qualified applicants. The expected operational savings from AI will materialize fully in S9, when we transition from parallel to AI-led reviews.

I plan to revisit team size and budget after analyzing AI performance metrics at the end of S8.

To incentivize high performance and loyalty, rewards should be delivered closer to the completion of the work or when proposed milestones are met.

As the Grants Council Lead, I do not have the authority to change the current retroactive funding policy, which stipulates a 1‑year lock, meaning elected members in July 2025 would not see their retroactive rewards unlocked until July 2027. I do, however, have the ability to let go and replace council members who are not performing properly during the season. This is why I chose not to propose a retroactive funding mechanism: I believe that timely, milestone‑aligned rewards combined with ongoing performance management are more effective than delayed retroactive payments under the current constraints.

The Lead role requires about twice the daily time commitment of a Reviewer (~4 hours vs. ~2 hours), which could justify a 2× compensation. However, for me Reviewers are the heart of the Council, delivering the most impactful work through direct proposal reviews and feedback. The Lead’s primary job is to maximize Reviewer efficiency. Considering both the greater time investment of the Lead and the critical impact of the Reviewers, I proposed a ~1.4× ratio. What would you suggest?

I don’t understand how the figure of 125k OP was calculated. In my proposed budget, the Ops Specialist is compensated at 50k OP/season, with an additional 39k OP in locked operating budget and 1k OP for multisig management, totaling 90k OP per season, to be revisited before Season 9. This amount covers both the personnel and operational costs required to keep the Council efficient and compliant.

Since both processes, AI and standard review, will run in parallel during Season 8, maintaining this level of operational support is necessary for now. However, I’m planning to revisit and potentially reduce both the operations and lead budgets at the start of Season 9, assuming the AI and the new platform demonstrably reduce workload.

The increase in reviewer compensation for Season 8 is justified on several grounds. In Season 7, reviewers earned a base of around 30k OP plus about 5k OP retroactively. For Season 8 there is no retroactive funding, so the 75k OP per reviewer reflects both the elimination of retroactive rewards and a more transparent, predictable structure.

One of the most impactful but undercompensated contributions in Season 7 was the outreach work reviewers did within their own networks, which directly brought in all of the top 20 TVL projects as applicants. Looking back, that effort deserved explicit recognition in the budget.

In Season 8 the reviewers’ responsibilities are also expanding. They will not only review and score applications as before, but also validate and reconcile AI scoring with their own assessments, making final decisions informed by both inputs. This additional layer of responsibility is crucial to ensuring a smooth and trustworthy transition to AI‑assisted reviews in Season 9 and beyond.

It is also important to note that once a season’s budget is approved, it is set in stone. The Grants Council has never requested additional budget mid‑season, even when workload or market conditions were worse than anticipated. Council members are expected to tolerate market fluctuations and unforeseen challenges while meeting their commitments. This discipline ensures predictability and trust in the process for both governance and applicants.

Market conditions for OP in December 2024 were significantly different from today, and the updated compensation accounts for that change while ensuring the Council can continue to attract and retain high‑quality reviewers.

1 Like
7

As an Optimism Delegate with sufficient voting power, I believe this proposal is ready to move forward to a vote.

1 Like
8

Please see the included thread and consider commenting here for the Grants Council.

9

We are an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and we believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

3 Likes
10

The Collective Rewards Framework provides useful historical guidance, but it no longer reflects the reality of the Grants Council’s workload, impact, or responsibilities today. The Framework suggested ~20k OP per season for Impact 7 roles (Grants Council), and even the adjusted ~38k OP figure from the Budget Board remains well below what is required to sustain the Council’s performance and outcomes.

Several factors justify the proposed 75k OP per reviewer per season:
– In Season 7, reviewers earned ~35k OP per season (including retroactive rewards), so this proposal consolidates compensation into a transparent, upfront amount by removing retro rewards.
– Reviewers in S7 went far beyond “reviewing” (even if not requiered) proactively bringing all of the top 20 TVL projects into the ecosystem through outreach, which directly drove impact far exceeding expectations.
– In Season 8, their responsibilities expand to include validating and reconciling AI-generated scores alongside their reviews, a critical and more complex transitional task to ensure the success of AI-assisted processes in Season 9 and beyond.
– The work performed today requires far more specialized context, sustained daily engagement, and strategic contribution than what the CRF’s Impact 7 level originally envisioned.

Finally, the Grants Council has always respected budget discipline. Once the budget is approved, we deliver on it without requesting adjustments mid-season, even if workload or market conditions change.

We’re happy to work with the Budget Board, the Foundation, and the Collective to help evolve the Rewards Framework to better reflect the current reality of the Councils, but in its current form it underestimates the level of expertise, responsibility, and results delivered by the Grants Council team.

1 Like
11

I’m an Optimism delegate w/ sufficient voting power and believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote

2 Likes
12

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

2 Likes
13

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

1 Like
14

Out of fairness to the questions posed to Milestone and Metrics, it is worth pointing out that the average per-season per-reviewer allocation of ~75k OP is ~40% higher than the Security Council per-member allocation and ~42% higher than the DAB proposed per-member allocation. You may have touched on some of the points for explanation above, but this detail could be relevant to the community.

As mentioned on the Milestone and Metrics council chain, relative distribution of workload may be helpful to discuss.

1 Like
15

We maintain a historic difference as always, if anything, the % difference between the Grants Council (GC) and the Security Council (SC) and Developer Advisory Board (DAB) has narrowed compared to previous seasons.

Council S7 per‑member S8/S9 per‑member % Difference vs GC (S7) % Difference vs GC (S8/S9)
Grants Council (GC) ~35,000 75,000 — —
Security Council (SC) ~20,357 ~53,730 ~-42% ~-40%
Developer Adv. Board (DAB) ~17,500 ~52,750 ~-50% ~-42%
3 Likes
16

Thank you @Gonna.eth, for putting together this budget proposal for Seasons 8 and 9. It’s encouraging to see the commitment to repricing stipends based on historical ETH benchmarks. Using the average ETH value from S6 and S7 to define the 73000 OP reviewer stipend shows a careful approach. We appreciate the decision not to use the S5–S7 average.

Considering the ETH/OP rate of 4580 (as of July 15, 2025), the 73000 OP reviewer stipend equals ~15.94 ETH, almost identical to the ~15.90 ETH received in Season 7, based on that season’s 1886 OP/ETH rate. This confirms the stipend remains flat in ETH terms, aligned with the S6–S7 average. We see an increase in the Lead an Operations role, however the logic behind this is understandable, especially given their operational overhead and leadership responsibilities.

That said:
The SEEDGov delegation, as we have communicated here, being an Optimism delegation with sufficient voting power, we believe this proposal is ready to move towards a vote.

3 Likes
17

The GC has been asked to reduce its Season 8 & 9 budget by 4494.44 OP, to adapt all budgets to the 4.4m DAO Operating Budget limit, proposed by the Budget Board.

The GC will decrease 750 OP from each member on the S8 compensation, reducing 4500 OP in total.

Member Stipends on S8:

  • Lead (1): 99.250 OP
  • Operations Specialist (1): 49.250 OP
  • Final Reviewers (4): 74.250 OP

Member Stipends on S9:

  • Lead (1): 100.000 OP
  • Operations Specialist (1): 50.000 OP
  • Final Reviewers (4): 75.000 OP
1 Like