You are welcome to read about grant programs here, but as Jack has said there has been no direct incentivization of transaction volume.
But, I again think you are missing the forrest for the trees here. Optimism is in fierce competition for worldclass builders with a seamingly endless number well funded Layer2s. RPGF and the idea that impact=profit is at the core of Optimism’s economic model and value proposition. The only way the system works is if we massively increase activity on these chains and the core philosophy behind RPGF is we do that by ensuring impact = profit.
Despite this, 95% of rewards went individuals and projects with little to no directly attributable onchain activity that drives sequencer revenue. Meetups, private events, part time members of goverance, protocols that were live three weeks, protocols that reported 13 total transactions, individuals who reported 0 impact metrics, all earned at a rates comparable to the top projects and builders in the ecosystem. The ones actually creating demand for Optimism’s blocksapce often at great personal risk.
Is sequencer revenue alone a perfect measure? Absolutely not. Would have weighting it higher in the distributions even if it meant ignoring second or third order effects of VC or grant funding on impact metrics led to better outcomes? Absolutely.
In the end here the biggest issue we face is that RPGF3 sent the message that if profit is the goal (which is what the system is intending to incentivize), building large expensive impactful applications on the OPStack is one of the lowest ROI ways to go about it… and that is big big problem for the future of the chain and program.