Grants Council Operating Budget S7

Elected Representatives 💼 Renewal
21

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

1 Like
22

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

1 Like
23

Grants Council Budget and Applicant Feedback

The Grants Council (GC) plays a crucial role within Optimism and deserves appropriate compensation. I want to congratulate the GC! Organizing, reviewing, and dealing with every applicant is not an easy task.

I agree with the decision for GC not to participate in the upcoming RPGF, as:

  • Current Funding: GC received 100k OP through two successful applications (one per season) in this round, in addition to their operating budget. This funding was not explicitly included in the application form and should be considered for all councils, not just GC, since every other applicant had to disclose its previous funding. As mentioned before, i believe GC has a crucial role on the OP GOV and it should be rewarded transparently.

  • Abstaining to participate on next RPGF if im correct, The next RPGF will not be a governance RPGF, making councils ineligible for participation anyways?

Applicant Feedback:

  • Feedback from applicants provides more valuable insights than feedback from grantees, who may be more inclined to offer positive reviews.
  • While we want to hear the good feedback, it is on the not-so-good that we can improve.
  • While Charmverse comments are helpful, they don’t constitute active communication.

.

Personal Experience*

  • Example of Constructive Feedback: “its recommended to Improve the roadmap with detailed timelines and actionables.”

(this is a very helpfull and constructive feedback, pointing exactly what the applicant should do)

  • Example of Unhelpful Feedback: “Your entire marketing plan relies solely on posting on YouTube.” This type of comment can be discouraging and feels like a judgment rather than constructive criticism while signaling that the reviewer probably did not even read the full application.

these are both feedback i received from the Grants Council on S6.

The weekly hours that the GC has been doing are a very good approach to address this communications with specifics or question on the application.

  • Better communication between GC and applicants will:
    • Increase approval rates
    • Reduce the number of low-quality applications
    • Enable teams to refine proposals based on feedback

On the current model, on the first phases of a mission, only a parcial review is made, but the deeper review is made once you pass the intake filter, having feedback here or earlier will allow teams to adapt and make the required changes to be able to meet the requirements without having to wait to the next cycle to apply again.

Conclusion:

GC is performing excellent work and is continually growing and evolving. This message aims to provide valuable insights based on my personal experiences as an applicant, both successful and unsuccessful

I hope this feedback is helpful.
Alberto

3 Likes
24

We vote FOR this proposal.

Here’s the rationale and context behind our decision.

We find the Scope Reduction particularly interesting: the decrease from 18 to 9 members reflects lessons learned from the previous season. We’re eager to see how this new structure plays out, especially with role migrations to other councils—Audit reviews moving to the DAB and the creation of the M&M Council as a independent entity.

That said, there are a few points we’re not fully comfortable with:

  1. Lead Compensation (1): 35,000 OP – Although it’s noted as “the same as Season 6,” this could cause confusion. In Season 5, the Token House approved 30,000 OP for the Lead and 10,000 OP for Ops. Technically, the Lead’s allocation was 30,000 OP, not 35,000, regardless of the specific circumstances that led to the higher payment.
  2. RetroFunding Budget – We find this allocation somewhat problematic. If several councils are not applying for Retro Funding due to difficulties in measuring the Grants Council’s impact, as well as the unpredictability of the rounds, it points to a flaw in the design of Retro Funding itself.
  3. Reporting Standards – While Cycle Reports are required, we believe the council should produce a final report with metrics rather than just an End-of-Season Retrospective filled with reflections.
  4. Reserve Budget – We need better systems for tracking workflows to ensure that any use of the additional reserve budget aligns with actual workload and priorities.
1 Like