As we kick off Season 6, we are excited to announce a revised rubric and review process to ensure a fair and transparent evaluation of Mission applications. Here are the key updates:
- Unified Rubric: This season, we will be using a single, general rubric that can be adapted to all Mission requests. The Grants Council has designed this rubric to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework for all applications.
- Increased Discretionary Slots: Reviewers will now have three discretionary slots instead of one. These slots allow reviewers to assign a score between -2 and 4 to specific aspects of the application. When applying discretionary scores, reviewers must provide a clear explanation for their decision.
- Final Scoring System: The final score for each Mission application will be calculated as the sum of all reviewer scores, divided by the number of reviewers who evaluated the application. This ensures that the scores are fair and representative of the overall consensus.
- Preliminary Review: The preliminary review will be conducted by a single reviewer. This step aims to provide an initial assessment and identify any major issues before the full review takes place.
- Feedback and Cycle 25: Any feedback received during the review process will be incorporated into the evaluation for Cycle 25. We encourage applicants to provide their feedback to the Grants Council by the designated deadline.
We believe these changes will lead to a more efficient and equitable review process.
| Generic Rubric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Opensource | no | some parts | yes | ||||
| Demo included (binary yes/no) | No demo or poor demo included | High-quality demo included | |||||
| Tangible Use Case | This project is highly abstract or not useful for the adoption | This project may have some tangible use case | This project has a reasonable probability of creating a tangible use case | This project presents a clear and useful use case for the adoption that may already exist. | This project presents a clear, unique and useful use case for the adoption | ||
| Intuitivity, ease of use and accesibility | The project lacks simplistic and or intuitive design | The Project is slightly intuitive and or simplistic, but improvements are needed | The Project demonstrates a fair degree of simplicity and intuitiveness | The Project is notably simplistic and intuitive | The Project excels in simplicity and intuitiveness and will be easy to onboard users | ||
| Technical implementation | The project design is too complex and hard to realize. | The project design is somewhat complex and realization is not impossible. | Limited or ineffective use of smart contracts | Moderately effective use of smart contracts, with some areas for improvement. | Demonstrates a sophisticated use of smart contract, providing comprehensive insights | ||
| Novelty | There is little to distinguish this project from other projects that exist on Optimism already | This is one of a small number of examples of a project being built on Optimism that are otherwise common throughout Web3 | This project is distinguishable from other projects in Web3 on the margins (e.g., a different way of doing something that may be done in other contexts already) | This project is distinguishable from other projects in Web3: very few other projects are doing something similar and this is not merely a different way of performing an existing operation | This project is at the vanguard of development and is meaningfully different from other projects in Web3. | ||
| Code Audit (intention to audit in the future should be part of the score) | No code audit | Some code audit but not by a well-known auditor | Some code audit by reputable auditor | Code fully audited but not by a well-known auditor | Code fully audited by reputable auditor | ||
| Aspirations | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Superchain composability potential | Project can’t be extended to the Superchain ecosystem | Project has multiple challenges to be extended to the Superchain ecosystem | Project has the potential to be extended to the Superchain ecosystem | ||||
| Project stickness | Clear flaw in design that cannot be easily remedied | Difficult to see the project continuing for more than a year | Reasonable chance that the project has intermediate-to-long-term success (+1 Year) | Project is likely to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem | Project has substantial likelihood to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem | ||
| Mission Alignment | No clear strategy for achieving the goals of the mission request | Some mission request strategy alignment with notable weaknesses and low impact | Moderate mission request alignment strategy with reasonable chances of success | Strong and well-defined mission request alignment strategy, is likely to succeed in a meaningful way | Project is a significant driver of the mission request, significant impact, and sets a standard for others to follow |
||
| Developers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Developer Draw | Project unlikely to draw more developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw more developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw many developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw many developers to Optimism who focus on building novel products | Project likely to draw a large number of developers who focus on building novel products | ||
| User / Developer Retention | Likely to attract users / devs who will not remain in the ecosystem | Likely to reach users / devs who derive utility from engaging with the Optimism network | Likely to reach users / devs who have a sustained need to use OP | Likely to reach users / devs who have a significant need to use OP and who offer significant value to the OP ecosystem | Likely to reach power users / devs, key Web3 ecosystems, and core developers who have a need to use OP | ||
| OP Request | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Distribution implementation plan | Proposed plan has little likelihood of reaching intended recipients | Proposed plan is unlikely to reach the breadth of recipients intended | Proposed plan is reasonably tailored to reach breadth of recipients intended | Proposed plan creates a likelihood that grant will reach breadth of recipients intended | Proposed plan is well-designed to reach breadth of recipients intended | ||
| Locked grant size | Grant size significantly outweighs projected benefit | Grant size is considerably larger than expected benefit | Grant size is proportional to expected benefit OR if Grant Size is greater than 35K OP, this is the highest score possible for this category | Expected benefit outweighs grant size | Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size | ||
| User incentives grant size | Grant size significantly outweighs projected benefit | Grant size is considerably larger than expected benefit | Grant size is proportional to expected benefit OR if Grant Size is greater than 35K OP, this is the highest score possible for this category | Expected benefit outweighs grant size | Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size | ||
| Team | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Team Commitment | No commitment attraction | Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end) | Commitment attraction (1 to 3 months after rewards end ) | Commitment attraction (1 year after rewards end) | Commitment attraction (2+ years after rewards end) | ||
| Team assessment | Team does not substantiate ability to deliver on plan | Team does not show significant ability to deliver on plan | Team shows reasonable ability to deliver on plan | Team has substantial relevant experience and shows significant ability to deliver on plan | Team’s track record exceeds what is required to deliver on plan | ||
| Milestones | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Security category (optional) | No concrete treatment of security concerns | Full description of likely risks and mitigations regarding security, user funds, and other concerns of that nature | |||||
| Milestone Trackability | Not trackable | Somewhat trackable | Easily trackable | ||||
| Milestones accountability | Not clear or not articulated roadmap | Reasonable but plausible roadmap | well-defined and highly achievable roadmap | ||||
| Measurable Impact | Milestones have no measurable impact or metric | Milestones have some measurable impact or metric | Clear metrics and indicators to measure the success and impact of the project |
| Other | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary factor 1* | |||||||
| Discretionary factor 2* | |||||||
| Discretionary factor 3* |
*Reviewers will have a discretionary score to apply to the overall rubric of (-2 to 4). An explanation must be included with the assignment of any discretionary score.
Proposer Conduct
It is a tremendous privilege for the Optimism community to have excellent developers and community members who seek to improve the ecosystem. Nevertheless, participation in the Optimism Grants process is a privilege for proposers, not an entitlement. In an effort to describe some behaviors that are not considered representative of the Optimism community’s spirit, reviewers may deduct points from a proposal where the proposer or its community members engage in conduct ill-suited to the Optimism ideals. The following point deductions may be cumulative.
- Removal from Cycle Contentious and disputes reviewer feedback from current or prior rounds in an abrasive manner, upon the recommendation of at least two reviewers, the relevant sub-committee can vote to disqualify the proposer for the current cycle by simple majority vote.
- Removal from Cycle Conduct that would represent a violation of the delegate code of conduct if the proposer were a delegate. Proposers should conduct themselves with the same standard of conduct as delegates given their proposal to better the Optimism ecosystem. Upon the recommendation of at least two reviewers, the relevant sub-committee can vote to disqualify the proposer for the current cycle by simple majority vote.
- Removal from Cycle Repeated conduct that signifies an active lack of respect for the process and / or the reviewers. Upon the recommendation of at least two reviewers, the relevant sub-committee can vote to disqualify the proposer for the current cycle by simple majority vote.
- Removal from Cycle if there is a reasonable basis in the opinion of the reviewer(s) to believe that the proposer has engaged in intentional or knowing misconduct or in conduct intended to mislead the council or its reviewers, upon the recommendation of at least two reviewers, the relevant sub-committee can vote to disqualify the proposer for the current cycle by simple majority vote.
- Removal from Season if there is a reasonable basis in the opinion of the reviewer(s) to believe the proposer has engaged in egregious behavior (e.g., outright dishonesty), upon the recommendation of at least two reviewers, the relevant sub-committee can vote to disqualify the proposer for the current cycle by simple majority vote.