The Grants Council proposes using the 1.040.000 OP intended to return to the Gov Fund. If this proposal passes, Token House will reallocate the OP to the following Mission Requests.
Mission Request
Approved
Granted
Remaining
Cycle Demand
Request
Intent
Making Optimism a primary home of liquid-staked eth
200,000
200,000
0
-852,000
420,000
3
Incentivize Projects to Integrate the Farcaster Social Graph
300,000
205,000
95,000
-784,890
305,000
3
Alternative CL/EL client Mission Request
100,000
0
100,000
-240,000
150,000
1
Open Source OP Stack Developer Tooling
250,000
80,000
170,000
-197,500
100,000
1
Decentralized rollup-as-a-service
100,000
65,000
35,000
-64,999
65,000
1
Total OP Approved via Mission Requests
6,799,000
550,000
-2,139,389
Total unallocated, to be returned to the Gov Fund
1,199,000
Budget 2 allocation requested to token house
1,040,000
Additionally, the GC will allocate 1M OP already approved by Toknes House on this budget to the following mission requests:
Mission Request
Approved
Granted
Remaining
Cycle Demand
Request
Intent
Growth and experiments grants program mission request
1,500,000
650,000
850,000
-4,963,485
500,000
2
smart contract auditing services
250,000
0
250,000
-569,999
415,000
3
OP Stack Research and Implementation
250,000
80,000
170,000
-45,000
45,000
1
Total OP Approved via Mission Requests
6,799,000
730,000
-5,578,484
Grants Council unallocated budget
1,000,000
If the Grants Council doesnāt receive additional funding for these mission requests, they will have to significantly decrease the number of finalists in Cycle 22 compared to the previous cycle. Due to the notable rise in demand for Optimism grants and the subsequent enhancement in proposal quality, the Council deems it essential to augment the budget for the remainder of Season 5.
Compared to the total amount being used on this grants cycle, the reallocation ask seems reasonable enough to go for a vote.
I look forward to discussing the effectiveness of the changes this season during the reflection period, but I am happy to hear the quality of submissions has improved!
I am an Optimism Delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
I have noticed that ImpactVoice.xyz doesnāt pass the intake filter. Resulting in demand for OP Stack Research and Implementation = -30,000. So, we should release 15,000 OP from OP Stack Research and Implementation and give them to Open Source OP Stack Developer Tooling?
Iām abstaining from this proposal since I didnāt vote for all of these mission requests so allocating more OP tokens to them isnāt something I feel strongly about.
We assume this proposal was created based on careful considerations by the Grants Council and contributors and itās generally considered optimal to reallocate unused funds to the needed area, and intend to vote FOR the proposal. We would also like to express appreciation to all contributors involved.
However, we believe the proposal as it is doesnāt quite have sufficient information for a delegate without deep knowledge about the details and progress of those Mission Requests and their Applications to appropriately evaluate it. For example,
How can we read the tables above? How are the numbers in Cycle Demand calculated? Links to relevant information? (Inconsistency in commas for numbers makes it harder to see too)
How are those Request numbers calculated? We assume they are from the applications applied to each Mission Request, but why can we justify those requests (or should we all rely on the council to make all decisions correctly?)
We believe the proposal itself should have its background information, motivation and all the relevant information for all voters to evaluate it. Possibly, itās the best to follow a template for all on-chain voting proposals.
On a side note, is there a clear rule for delegates that are also members of the Grants Council to abstain from the proposal? We see some delegates abstain but others donāt, which isnāt really consistent and should be clearly defined in our opinion. (We might not fully understand the list of members in the current Grants Council, though.)
I fully agree with @Tane . It also seems like some of the numbers donāt add up, unless Iām reading/understanding it wrong?
For the āAlternative CL/EL client Mission Requestā: 100,000 approved, plus 150,000 requested, but cycle demand is -240,000? So the request is for 10,000 OP more than the total demand?
For āOP Stack Research and Implementationā, thereās already been 80,000 granted but the cycle demand is -45,000? How can you grant 35,000 OP more than there is demand for?
Maybe I just donāt understand? Is ācycle demandā meant to mean āadditional demand on top of pre-approved allocation amountā?
Even so, for āDecentralized rollup-as-a-serviceā, cycle demand is -64,999 but request is for 65,000 - what happened to that 1 OP?
The below response reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāll be voting in favor of the proposal as we believe reallocating the OP to the mission requests described in the proposal to be a value add to the DAO. We are also on-board with the idea of deploying the 1M OP that was already approved by token-house to support the mission requests further.
How are the numbers in Cycle Demand calculated?
The total sum of OP requested by applications in the mission request
Links to relevant information?
All the applications are public in Charmverse and you can filter by Mission Request.
Inconsistency in commas for numbers makes it harder to see too Fixed
Your assumption is correct. The intent budget was created in Oct 2023 itās impossible to foresee which intent is going to have demand based on Mission Requests made by the community. A good example of this is Intent 4 with 1.33M (Oct 2023) while missions requests approved by the token house (almost all of them for this intent) demanded 529,000 OP total. If the GC proposed the original budget in Oct 2023, then it is logical a new proposal with corrections based on demand is done by the same council.
You donāt need to rely on the council to make all decisions correctly, we submitted this proposal so that Token House can approve our decision and delegates can always vote No.
All the background information was posted in the Cycle 22 roundup here before this proposal. The motivation is clear, relocate OP approved by the token house in the original budgets based on Mission Requests demand, and relevant information has been always public.
You can find each subcommitteeās structure and members here:
