Season 7 Milestones and Metrics Council Operating Budget

Proposed Lead: @Juanbug_PGov

Proposed Operating Budget: 170,000 OP

  • Same cost per team member as S5 & S6, new independent council as per S7 Guidance.

Contact Info: PGovTeam@gmail.com

Link to community contributions:

Link to relevant work experience:

  • Milestones and Metrics Lead for S5 & S6
    • Grants Council member leading the M&M committee prior to the Foundation’s decision to split into a new Council this season.
  • Code of Conduct Council S5
  • Delegate since OP Governance Inception

Council Charter:
In the past couple of seasons, the Milestones and Metrics team operated as a committee within the Grants Council. For S7, as highlighted in the S7 Guidance, it is now “required that the Milestone and Metrics function become its own Council.”

For prior seasons, our charter was part of the Grants council overall charter. Now for this season, here is our proposed independent charter: Link Here

Breakdown of Council Operating Budget:

Roles and indepth descriptions for each role is in the proposed charter.

  • Milestones and Metrics Reviewers (3): 25,000 OP each

    • Same per reviewer as S5 & S6.
    • A further governance process will decide these 3 reviewers.
    • Following the S7 guidance, “the Foundation recommends adding 1+ members to the Milestones and Metrics Council,” so we are looking to increase the total team size from 3 to 4 (3 reviewers, 1 lead)
  • Milestones and Metrics Lead (1): 35,000 OP

    • Same as S5 & S6.
  • Multisig Management/Ops Budget: 40,000 OP total (new to S7)

    • Following the S7 guidance, “the Milestones and Metrics Council will manage a community multisig, delivering grants to recipients selected by the Grants Council.” The specifics on the operations and day to day workload are yet to be fleshed out entirely with the Foundation, but we expect it to be managing the payments and distribution of up to 10m+ OP for prior approved grant recipients, updating the public trackers, and conversing with respective teams relevant details.
    • The Foundation plans to add 3 Additional Signers to the distribution multisig from the Developer Advisory Board (1) and the Grants Council (2) for an additional layer of security. These Additional Signers will be tasked with double checking the transactions submitted by the Milestones and Metrics reviewers, and we expect ~3000 OP allocated to each Additional Signer in line with S6 Anticapture Commission’s signers rewards.
      • 7 total: 3 M&M Reviewers, 1 M&M Lead, 2 GC Reviewers, 1 DAB Member
    • Budget will include covering all hardware and software related to signing, as well as operations related expenses that arise for the M&M council. Examples may include funding a Dune dashboard creation to track grants impact, etc.
  • Retroactive Funding Reserve Bonus: 20,000 OP total (new to S7)

    • The Milestones and Metrics Council will not participate in Retro Funding for this Season
    • Similarly to the Grants Council 20,000 OP Reserve designated for algorithmic retroactive compensation. The algorithm will be designed and approved by the elected Milestones and Metrics Council members later in the season, ensuring fair and transparent distribution based on measurable contributions.

Total Breakdown:

  • Milestones and Metrics Reviewers (3): 75,000 OP
  • Milestones and Metrics Lead (1): 35,000 OP
  • Multisig Management/Ops Budget: 40,000 OP
  • Retroactive Funding Reserve Bonus: 20,000 OP
  • Total: 170,000 OP

How should governance participants assess impact?

User Experience KPIs:

  • <5% of quality applicant drop off due to milestones issues
  • <1 week turnaround from Grant completion to grants delivery

Performance KPIs:

  • Helping aid increase of TVL on Optimism in line with Season’s goals using these metrics: Total TVL, Stablecoin TVL, Wrapped Asset TVL, and Bridged Asset TVL.
  • Helping aid increase of TVL on OP Chains using these metrics: Total TVL, Stablecoin TVL, Wrapped Asset TVL, and Bridged Asset TVL.
  • Projects to be clawed back due to misunderstood timelines <5%
  • Reviewing >95% of projects that have completed all milestones within 5 work days.

Additional KPIs:

  • Continuous decreased reliance on Foundation’s growth team for information on milestones and tracking and disbursements, subject to feedback from the Foundation; working closely with Foundation to keep on track.

Justification for Budget

  • This is the first season where the Milestones and Metrics team will be its own independent Council from the Grants Council, however, we expect to work very closely with the Grants Council as in prior seasons.
    • For this reason, the Lead and each Reviewers’ compensation will stay the same as S5 and S6. As mentioned above, the Foundation has recommended we increase the total team size to 4 to help with the increased quantity and scope of work.
  • New to this season is the significant new responsibility of managing a multisig and taking over the fund disbursement task for all the grants from the Foundation. Specific details are still being worked out with the Foundation, and the proposed budget will fund the extra operational costs and bandwidth associated with this. Once the Council starts and understands the required workflow, an internal vote by the elected Milestones and Metrics Council members will be made to determine how to allocate this funding.
    • There will be 3 Additional Signers to this multisig, 1 from the Developer Advisory Board and 2 from the Grants Council. These 3 Additional Signers will not be tasked with reviewing milestones and creating transactions, but will act as an additional layer of security to additionally check transactions. Each of these Additional Signers will receive the proposed allocations from the Reserve to compensate them for their time. Specific expectations around all signers are included in the charter.
  • New to this season is that similarly to the Grants Council’s proposed budget, we will not be applying for Retroactive Funding. Our logic is very similar, in that the results of Retro funding often take at least a year to materialize, and even then, the impact is indirect and difficult to quantify. By focusing on our mandate and effectively holding teams accountable to their grant promises, ultimately driving TVL growth this season and executing on prior intents, this Reserve ensures our role remains distinct and avoids competing for funding in a program where its contributions are not easily comparable to other applicants, and lets future rounds focus on other projects. The Reserve is in line with the proposed Grant’s Council Reserve and is subject to change (decrease).
10 Likes

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

We are an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power, and we believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

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

We are an Optimism Delegate with sufficient voting power, and 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 to a vote.

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

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

It’s exciting to witness the evolution of Optimism’s governance!

I believe effective communication between the Grants Council (GC) and the Metrics Council is paramount.

Our goal should be to provide applicants with a seamless user experience as if they were interacting with a single entity.

Streamlining the Application Process:

While separating grants and metrics evaluations on the backend is necessary, we can improve the applicant experience by:

  • Early Feedback: Applicants could potentially receive initial or partial feedback from the GC (or the metrics council thats in contact with the GC) on the first phases of the application process, even before the Metrics Council completes its evaluation.
  • Benefits: This early feedback would allow applicants to address any concerns raised by the GC early on, giving greater insights rather than just focusing on metrics and milestones for the initial phases, improving the overall application quality and potentially increasing approval rates.

Addressing Potential Challenges:

I understand the concern of overloading the GC with reviews for applications that may not pass the metrics phase. However, I believe we can find a solution that balances the need for early GC feedback with the workload considerations.

Conclusion:

By fostering strong communication and collaboration between the GC and the Metrics Council, we can create a more efficient and streamlined application process for all applicants.

I’m eager to explore potential solutions and work towards a more integrated and user-friendly governance experience.

1 Like

We vote FOR this proposal.

Here’s the rationale and context behind our decision.

We see value in the formalization of this council as an independent council separate from the Grants Council. Maintaining the same budgets as Season 6—Milestones and Metrics Reviewers (3): 25,000 OP each and Milestones and Metrics Lead (3): 20,000 OP each—seems reasonable.
The Retroactive Funding Reserve Bonus: 20,000 OP (new for S7) is also noteworthy. Since the M&M Council will not apply for RetroFunding, citing the long timeframe (a year or more) needed to observe results and the difficulty of quantifying their impact, this highlights a broader issue: RetroFunding may need adjustments to better align with governance processes.