Season 6 Grants Council Operating Budget Proposal

Proposed Council Lead: Gonna.eth

Proposed Council Operating Budget: 610.000 OP (+ 170.000 OP relative to the previous Season)

Contact Info:

Please link to any previous work or qualifications to be Council Lead:

Link to community contributions:

Link to relevant work experience:

  • Delegate since OP governance inception
  • Member of the first committee
  • Grants Council Reviewer on Season 3
  • Grants Council Reviewer and Ops manager on Season 4
  • Grants Council Reviewer and Ops manager on Season 5
  • Grants Council appointed to lead on Season 5

Council Charter:

  • Link to Last Season’s Charter: Link
  • Link to proposed Season 6 Charter: Link

Looking at Season 4, which had 314 applications, and Season 5, which saw an increase to 500 applications, we projected that Season 6 would have around 895 applications. However, Season 6 has fundamentally changed its scope to focus on core metrics such as “9,500 active developers driving network usage.” Given this shift, I believe a more realistic projection for Season 6 is between 500 and 700 applications.

Breakdown of Council Operating Budget:

  • Superchain Mission Reviewer (top 3 ranked in token house vote) = 30.000 OP each (same as S5)
  • Optimism Mission Reviewer (9 members) = 30.000 OP each (same as S5)
    • Internal procedures will describe how reviewers will be penalized if they don’t complete 100% of their work.
    • Internal Operating procedure will define how application distribution is done.
  • Additional members = 50.000 OP (Stays in gov fund if not used)
    • The Grants Council may, by the affirmative vote of ten reviewers (including all relevant review teams), opt to add additional reviewers. In this case, the reviewer with the next most votes (after the elected reviewer with the least votes) shall be provided the option to join the Optimism Mission Review Team, with rewards pro-rated for the time that has elapsed in Season 6 prior to joining the Grants Council.
  • Audit and Special Mission Reviewer (2 member) = 15.000 OP each (new position)
    • This Team may handle highly technical material and should consist of reviewers with a technical background.
  • Milestones and Metrics Reviewer (3 members) = 25.000 OP each (same as S5)
    • Milestones and metrics will put additional efforts into metrics around council reviewers and performance.
  • Milestones and Metrics Manager (1 MaM member) = 10.000 OP each (same as S5)
    • Must be an elected member of the Milestone and Metrics subcommittee and will be appointed by the Grants Council Lead.
  • Ops Manager and Lead = 10.000 OP (same) + 30.000 (same)
    • Season 5 budget proposed 0 compensation for the lead and rewards should have happened during a Season 5 RetroPGF. A week before the first submission round, LundVenturesllc appointed me as the Grants Council Lead and I kept the reviewer rewards I had assigned, as lead rewards. I am proposing 40.000 instead of 0 because the latest RetroPGF design is not synched with the Grants Council Season (personal opinion). During Seasons 4 and 5 there was a division between Ops Manager and Grants Council Lead. The work between both positions is very intertwined and requires someone with deep knowledge of all the steps and things happening during the process, this is why I recommend unifying them.
  • Communications manager = 5.000 OP (same)
  • Council-related requests for grants = 40k OP (same)
    • 40k OP will be set aside for grants specifically designed to enhance Council operations (e.g., knowledge management platform, front-end, developer contributions, etc).

Breakdown: There are 18 sports in the council, 12 reviewers, 3 Milestones and Metrics subcommittee members, 2 for Audits reviewers and the Grants Council Lead.

  • Superchain Mission Reviewers = 90.000 OP
  • Optimism Mission Reviewers = 270.000 OP
  • Additional members = 50.000 OP (if needed)
  • Audit and Special Mission Reviewer = 30.000 OP
  • Milestones and Metrics Reviewer = 75.000 OP
  • Milestone and metrics manager = 10.000 OP
  • Ops Manager and Lead = 40.000 OP
  • Communications manager = 5.000 OP
  • Council-related requests for grants = 40.000 OP (if needed)
  • Total = 610.000 OP (90.000 OP returns to Gov Fund if not needed)

How should governance participants measure the Council’s impact?

Builder Experience KPIs:

  • NPS of finalists > 9/10
  • Quality applicants, the Grants Council is unable to support less than 5%
    • “Unable to support” Qualified applications are those that meet the criteria but weren’t supported due to budget constraints or tier limitations requiring Foundation intervention, or applications lost during the review process.

Grant Performance KPIs:

The Foundation suggests the below measures, or similar:

  • Intent 1 Commit a 5% increase on the votable supply
  • Intent 3, increase active developers driving the network by 150 (pending revision of how this is measured)
  • 5 OP Chain grants programs launched
  • Number of grants that have to be clawed back for failure to meet milestones less than 5%

I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a Optimism Badgeholder. I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

1 Like

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


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


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


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

Clarification - the above delegation is specific to me and unrelated to the two opSNXambassador approvals

1 Like

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

Voted Against

While I do appreciate the amount of work the GC members put in, I feel the amount proposed is too high.
For me there is no room for RPGF.

Thank you for your feedback. I value your input, could you please provide a specific amount that you feel would be more appropriate?

I can’t change it but I can understand what others think.

Can you elaborate?

1 Like

Sup Gonna Thanks for the opportunity to provide more context

I don’t have a specific amount to suggest and I understand you cant change it now. It is my own fault for not raising my concerns earlier in this rapid special voting round.

My reasons for feeling this way
Last season when the GC budget was announced OP token price was more than 50% less than what it is today. This season its the same amount of OP requested for the reviewer positions with more than double the value gained.
In an opposite and different scenario would the amount of OP requested stayed the same if OP token price was still around $1…? I believe the requested amount would have increased dramatically…

I understand GC members will go over and beyond the min 20h per week and I do appreciate all the work that GC members do!

But for arguments sake, This is probably a bad example but if we just use the min hours of 20h/week with the Optimism Mission Reviewer budget of 30k per member and assume GC will be working every week in season 6 that is round about 27 weeks which gives us an average of $145 per/h +/-
I realize everyone has different experiences, backgrounds, responsibilities and geo-locations but this to me where i am from is way too much. to put that in context 8h of GC work is more than the average full-time monthly salary in my country… “Wow that is insane”. In total 6 months of GC work +/-540h is 30k OP comes to about 4.5 years(+/-9000 hours) of work for the average man where i am from. I know this eg is flawed as everyone is in different places. But I feel im not too far off, if we take the average hourly pay for the United States is $30 an hour GC is earning 5x more. I am not saying the average salary should be the target as i know GC work is specialized skills required, Im just saying a more realistic approach should be taken.

To elaborate on my statement “no room for RPGF”
The view i have is the minimum should be requested to complete the task leaving room for the Citizens House to reward GC for going over and above with RPGF.
This budget is designed on a prediction of an amount of applications GC could possibly receive this season and there is no guarantee that the target will be met. I feel using this predictive method to calculate a budget can get abused and disregards RPGF roll in balancing Impact=Profit

Personally for me as a Citizen, Profit=100% already regardless of Impact. “This is a premature stance and would change if applications dramatically exceed your predicted amount or work load changes etc”

The SEED Latam delegation, as we have communicated here, with @Joxes being an Optimism delegate we VOTE FOR this proposal.

We believe that the changes in the Council structure, with a total of 18 members, represent a significant step in the right direction. We think that the addition of new roles, such as audit reviewers, can help lighten the workload of the current reviewers. The proposed 610k OP for operational expenses is higher than what was approved in the previous season, but considering that there will be at least 3 rounds during season 6 (each lasting between 3 and 4 weeks), unlike the 2 rounds in season 5, we understand that this increase may be necessary since more applications are expected throughout the 3 rounds.

To illustrate with data regarding the volume of proposals we can estimate for season 6: during season 4, there were 3 rounds*, and the number of applications increased from 152 in season 3 to 307 in season 4, doubling from one season to the next (see chart below). However, given the nature of season 6, with scopes focused on more specific metrics, we consider it appropriate to estimate a projection of between 500 and 700 applications.

You can check this in Big Picture: The Grants Council.

*During season 4 initially 2 rounds were planned, but in practice, there were 3.


Thanks @Gonna.eth and other Council members who have worked on the Season 5 grants. Truly appreciated the works the council has put in and the impact made by it.

We vote FOR the proposal because it’s essential for the Collective to support a well-established grant system and adjust the rewards based on the increased works and scopes to take on. Organizing a grant system with an appropriate structure is an incredible feat and should be valued.

We are excited to see the measurements that the new Grant Council can achieve with updated Intents. OP Chain grants programs are something we particularly look forward.


The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

Disclaimer: @kaereste was an elected member of the Grants Council since its inception and provided feedback on the proposed draft versions of these budget assumptions in discussions with @Gonna.Eth.

We are voting in favor of this proposed budget. Optimism Grants Council is one of the most mature grant-allocation structures we’ve seen in the whole crypto space. It proved to be efficient and thorough in reviewing hundreds of applications. The best evidence of the success of this approach is the growing number of applicants despite the relatively high bar for approval. The increase in operating expenses reflects an increased workload and the constant improvement in the comprehensiveness of internal processes.


You just voted your 4.9m OP in support increasing the budget of this Council by 170,000 OP, when you’ve been on this Council since it’s inception, and contributed to this latest Proposal?

You don’t think it would have been more prudent or appropriate to Abstain in your vote in this case, considering the real or perceived conflict of interest here? Further, it looks like you’ve only provided disclosure after voting?

Good thing we got rid of those Self-Dealing rules, right? Ha! And we’re about to evaporate the Code of Conduct Council soon too, by the looks of it. Ha ha ha!

The Grant Council, led by @Gonna.eth, has made significant contributions to SS5, positively influencing Optimism. We vote FOR SS6 because the increased budget and resources are reasonable, given the heightened expectations and needs. While the rising budget and number of reviewers each season is concerning, this proposal addresses the core issues in SS5. Gonna’s past experience assures us that these resources will be well managed. The professionalism of the Grant Council and the sheer volume of work it undertakes are admirable. This large budget is necessary to further strengthen the ecosystem and ensure the continuity and continuous improvement of the program. As ITU BLOCKCHAIN, we support this proposal for SS6, trusting that Gonna and the council will push forward effective initiatives.

1 Like

Thank you for taking the time and I hope we can have this type of debate before the vote next time all good points. My focus is on OP governance weight rather than OP price. I believe active participants in the ecosystem should be rewarded with more voting power, and I based the budget on that premise and a probable increase in application submission as we have seen every season. As the voting supply has grown from S4 to S5 and now, the relative impact of Grants Council reviewers on the token house has decreased. Despite this, GC members remain the most active and engaged delegates in the collective. While it’s not the Grants Council’s role to balance this, most rewards have remained the same as in S5 in terms of voting power. This approach acknowledges the different market conditions and avoids the appearance of seeking higher rewards unnecessarily. Based on your argument, we also need to consider the risk, as it’s important to note that market conditions could go up/down over the next few months before the rewards are distributed.

I have to say, budgeting is not an easy task and what you say has been part of my thoughts too.


This is my opinion and has nothing to do with Govnerds or Grants Council.

The quorum was 26M and the proposal received 46M votes in favor. I don’t think the 4.9M from L2beat could change the outcome.

Most of the feedback I requested from Season 5 Grants Council members was on how to better split work amongst reviewers, hence the removal of the subcommittees, if the Audits subcommittee was worth a try, how to make the cycles shorter, and how they felt about the option to pause their compensations and work during a cycle if they had personal matters to attend (because I’m concerned about reviewers being burned out) which they all responded something like “if we commit to review we will meet a deadline”

1 Like

Hey @Gonna.eth, thanks for putting this together, It’s great to see more governance distribution and also the effort for milestones and metrics. I have a concern about this on the grant performance KPIs:

This KPI could lead to milestones being considered done. I think the bar should be higher for evaluating technical delivery and impact (that’s more subjective). So, the treasury is more efficient, and we should also make sure to reward the teams that are aligned with the collective values and quality.

I am still thinking of an ideal KPI. Meanwhile, it would be great to hear thoughts.

1 Like

I had a lot of KPI drafted but somehow I always needed more resources resulting in a bigger budget to collect the data. I agree with your point and I’ll try to add what you suggest to the final report even if it’s not mentioned in the original proposal.

Love to see the conversation with @alextnetto.eth on KPIs! We absolutely want to move towards more analysis on the impact of grants and how they contribute to the north start metrics under each Intent. I agree with Gonna that it’s difficult to have the Grants Council do this work but a Mission Request could be created to provide analysis on technical delivery and/or impact of grants (in fact, the Foundation is working on one now to evaluate past growth experiment grants.)