Hey @Optimistic_emilly, thank you for your thoughtful insights and feedback on unused OP in Mission Requests. Your point about addressing the root problem rather than just reallocating budgets is spot on, and I want to share a concrete example from Season 6 related to gaming.
In Season 6, we had a fragmented approach to gaming-related Mission Requests, with the following three initiatives:
- Develop Onchain Social Games that Attract Builders to Optimism - v2 (70k OP): 40k OP remained unallocated.
- Support On-Chain Games Close to Launch (70k OP): The full 70k OP went unallocated.
- Accelerating Game Development in the Superchain (300k OP): Only 20k OP was allocated, leaving 280k OP unused.
The intent behind this fragmentation was to address different layers of gaming development and provide opportunities for builders across various stages. However, despite these efforts, we observed a lack of quality applicants. The applications we received didn’t align with the strategic goals of the MRs.
After three cycles, it became clear that this approach wasn’t working. With hindsight, we could have reallocated the 410k OP from these underutilized MRs and pivoted toward a more unified, top-down strategy. For instance, engaging established platforms like Steam or Epic Games to explore partnerships might have provided a stronger foundation for gaming initiatives.
Considering that Season 7 has 7 cycles instead of 6, I’m tempted to propose an experiment:
- 3 cycles for grants to ensure focused application review,
- 1 cycle dedicated to Mission Request development and budget reallocation,
- Followed by 3 more cycles for grants.
Another lesson learned is that Grants Council (GC) members cannot effectively run a review process and a Mission Request process in parallel, as it requires substantial time and effort. By separating these activities into distinct phases, we can optimize both processes and achieve better outcomes.