Season 6 Grants Council Final and Retrospective Report

[SEEDGov]

As part of our commitment to the Feedback Commission, we would like to share some ideas and reflections on the Grants Council retrospectives for S6.

Major Problems and Proposed Solutions

1. Tight Timeline Between Elections and Grant Submissions

@Gonna.eth

Proposed Solution: Establish a task force immediately in grants council S7 budget approval to handle forms and rubric creation, ensuring enough time for feedback and QA.

Are there any other alternatives that you might consider to address this issue? Additionally, could we explore the possibility of including the rubrics in the application for the Grants Council? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

2. Scoped Mission Requests (MRs)

@Gonna.eth

• Problem: While scoped MRs improved the quality of applications, they excluded potential applicants whose projects didn’t align with the MR scope. This created frustration and reduced overall participation in creative solutions.
• Solution: Introduce a “General Innovation” MR to allow projects that don’t fit scoped MRs but still align with ecosystem goals.

This represents a significant improvement, and it’s worth celebrating. Over the past two years, Optimism has made consistent adjustments to its roadmap in response to feedback from applicants seeking funding. Many applicants express a desire to pursue specific projects but find it challenging to locate an appropriate Mission Request (MR) that aligns with a “collectively accepted vision.” This situation often arises from their eagerness to be highly innovative.

We share the question of whether these requests might benefit from special review treatment by the Developer Advisory Board (DAB) and possibly some input from the Foundation.

3. Budget Stagnation for Certain MRs

@Gonna.eth

If an MR remains inactive for a specific period, its budget can be reassigned to active MRs like audits if the demand is there.

Could we get clarification on what is meant by an inactive MR? Does it refer to an MR that didn’t receive any applications, or one that hasn’t been approved within a certain period, leaving the funds still available?

4. Audit Challenges

@Gonna.eth

• Problem: The demand for audits exceeded available funding by nearly 1M OP. Additionally, the audit review process required significant time and effort, creating bottlenecks.
• Solution: Position audit grants as partial subsidies rather than full funding to manage expectations and stretch the budget further. Adjust future budgets to better accommodate audit demand based on historical data.

To better understand this demand, could you clarify whether it arises from existing applications or new proposals? Additionally, is there any data available regarding the relationship between audits received and subsequent increases in usage or successful launches?

This could present a valuable opportunity for us to refine our focus, strengthening our current applications while also nurturing promising new projects.

We would like to explore the possibility of allocating a portion of the audit funds to support existing and functioning projects while also reserving another portion for new initiatives.

5. Developer Awareness Gap

@Gonna.eth

• Solution: Recruit a business development professional to increase awareness and engagement with the Grants Council. Promote the program through developer-focused events, partnerships, and direct outreach.

This is an excellent proposal and we would like to ask if there is a defined approach for recruiting this contributor. It seems that electing this Headcount from among the members of the Grants Council, with oversight from the Foundation, could be a beneficial approach. Additionally, implementing a straightforward “request for removal” proposal could allow governance to make decisions regarding this individual when necessary.

On another note, we see a fantastic opportunity for improvement in how we communicate about grants. While the current messaging from individual reviewers on Twitter is appreciated, we feel that a more consistent and unified communication strategy could boost our engagement with the ecosystem. By working together to refine our communication approaches, we can create clearer, more centralized messaging. This will enable us to set defined milestones for our initiatives, making it easier to measure our success and celebrate our achievements.

6. Different Objectives Across Mission Requests

@Gonna.eth

Solution: Facilitate a pre-season alignment workshop with representatives from OP Labs, the Foundation, and the Collective to ensure shared goals and priorities. Clearly define and document common objectives in a collaborative charter that can guide the Grants Council throughout the season. Establish regular cross-actor check-ins to assess progress toward these unified goals and address discrepancies before they escalate.

This sounds wonderful. We believe having one representative from core development would be quite sufficient.

Improvements to the Grants Council for Next Season

2. Streamline the Mission Request Process

@Gonna.eth

Introduce a hybrid MR model where budgets can be either fully allocated for applicants or partially available for standard initiatives aligned to S7 Intent.

Could you clarify what is meant by “standard initiatives”?

3. Incorporate a Tiered Reviewer System

@Gonna.eth

• Problem: Reviewer expertise varied, leading to potential mismatches in the evaluation of applications.
• Possible Improvement:
• Establish Tier 1 reviewers (experts) for highly technical evaluations and Tier 2 reviewers (generalists) for broader application reviews.
• Focus expertise on Mission Requests requiring deep technical understanding, such as DeFi or Superchain integrations.

Could you please explain how this might affect the election process? Lastly, what level of demand for ‘experts’ do you anticipate for the upcoming season?

4. Reduce the Number of Team Members

@Gonna.eth

• Problem: Leading 18 members was highly complex and required major discipline to keep processes running smoothly, often stretching coordination and management capacity.
• Improvement: Reduce the number of Grants Council members to a more manageable size, allowing for streamlined operations, clearer communication, and better accountability. A smaller team can focus on specialized roles, such as business development, mission request design, and grant evaluation, without overcomplicating workflows.

We appreciate the approach taken to address this problem. Acknowledging the inefficiencies in the Council’s composition and striving to boost it by streamlining the structure is a commendable step toward improvement.

5. Elect Operations Roles as a Single Team

@Gonna.eth

• Improvement: The Grants Council budget should include the election of a unified operations team, consisting of a Lead, an Operations Coordinator, and a Milestone and Metrics Lead if these roles are part of the council. These roles should be elected as one team in the budget, with a shared mandate to ensure proper functionality and accountability for the Grants Council. Reviewers can still be elected by the Token House, but the operational team needs cohesive leadership to manage the council effectively.

We understand the reasoning behind this suggestion; however, we are concerned that it may unintentionally restrict access to key positions within the Grants Council. If members of the Collective wish to apply for an operational role in the Council, they would be limited by the requirement to assemble a whole team for their application.

Improvements to the Grants Council mandate

@Gonna.eth

Improvement: Define a single, measurable, and on-chain metric for the Grants Council mandate. This metric should provide a clear path for decision-making and success evaluation, such as the number of active contracts deployed, unique developer addresses interacting with Optimism, or cumulative gas fees generated by funded projects. This will focus the council’s efforts and ensure alignment across all members.

Could you elaborate on what is meant by ‘on-chain metric’?