Season 9 Final Report

Grants đź”´ Grants Updates
1

Highlights

The Grants Council closed Season 9 submissions on May 20th.

Submission flow increased significantly in the final two cycles, bringing the Season 9 total to 38 applications.

Across the season, GrantNerds reviewed 29 applications, passing 10 to the Grants Council, with 4 ultimately receiving grants. The AI filter continued to reduce reviewer load by filtering applications that were clearly outside the mission scope, while GrantNerds provided the human judgment needed to catch edge cases, clarify weak applications, and ensure that promising proposals were not lost due to automated screening.

The Grants Council reviewed 19 applications directly and passed 8.

Cycle 52/53 represented the final review period of Season 9 and closed with 5 applications approved and 12 declined.

Key Outcomes: Cycle 52/53

Applications Approved: 5
Applications Declined: 12

Growth Applications
Nr Title OP requested Result
1 Gauntlet 800,000 Passed
2 Re7 1,000,000 Passed
3 Alchemix 500,000 Passed
4 Centrifuge 400,000 Passed
5 OPLYN — OP Liquidity Safety Net 150,000 Passed
6 Beefy 300,000 Declined by GC
7 Steer Protocol 750,000 Declined by GC
8 SecuriLayer — Anti-Drainer Security Layer for Superchain DeFi 250,000 Declined by GC
9 ExergyNet 50,000 Declined by GC
10 LiquidityPilot — PriorityPair Pilot 240,000 Declined by GC
11 PredictAsiaX 125,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
12 GBLIN (Global Balanced Liquidity Index) 15,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
13 SuperPair.markets 500,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
14 Miras 50,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
15 Quantir Priority-Pair Liquidity Incentive Monitor 75,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
16 superchain-guard — The Security Frontier for Interoperable Intents 32,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)
17 Fastnode. io 75,000 Declined by AI (confirmed by GovNerds)

Funding Overview

Total OP Requested from Growth Applications this Cycle: 5,312,000 OP
Total OP Granted, Conditionally Approved: 2,850,000 OP
Season 9 Grants Council Budget: 3,690,000 OP
Season 9 Budget Returned: 90,000 OP

Season 9 Overview

Season 9 was conducted under difficult market conditions, but the commitment across the full review pipeline remained exceptionally strong.

From GrantNerds to Final Reviewers, Milestones and Metrics reviewers, and Grants Council members, participation remained reliable throughout the season. Regardless of market volatility, workload, or uncertainty around the future of the Grants Council, contributors showed up and delivered. Season 9 reinforced that this group can be trusted to execute.

Final Reviewer and Council Commitment

I want to thank every Grants Council member, Final Reviewer, Milestones and Metrics participant, and GrantNerd who contributed to Season 9.

Special thanks to a few not in GC group this season.

  • @jackanorak, now “Chris”, although I am never calling you that.
  • @GFXlabs, Papper, who calls me out on the spot whenever I am off course.
  • @katie, always joyful no matter the weather.
  • @MoneyManDoug, who somehow always knows projects inside out.
  • @danelund.eth, without you, this would have never been possible.
  • @lavande, for always taking the governance side in every fight, whether with the Foundation, Labs, or us. Never change

The commitment from this group was unbreakable. That reliability should not be taken for granted.

The Council has often been judged by its outputs as it should, but its strongest contribution may be operational trust: applicants know they will be reviewed, milestones will be checked, and decisions will be made through a consistent process. And that’s how @Bunnic and @brichis picked up a scammer faking a grant by using a bug on karma to self-approve himself, not on our watch.

Personal Note

This will be my final season as Grants Council Lead, regardless of whether the Foundation proposes dissolving the Grants Council in a future season.

Serving under this role has been the most meaningful responsibility I have had in the Optimism Collective. I’m still a delegate (the first one that submitted the commitment back in 2023) and a citizen. I am grateful to everyone who helped build, improve, challenge, and operate this process over the past seasons.

The Grants Council has never been perfect, but it has been real governance work: public, accountable, iterative, and carried forward by contributors who consistently showed up.

Thank you to everyone who made Season 9 possible.

8 Likes
S9 Grants Council Communication Thread
2

Big thanks to everyone involved in Season 9. :heart:
It was a real privilege to contribute as part of the @govNERDs responsibilities, and to work alongside such thoughtful reviewers and contributors across the pipeline. :sparkles:

I learned a lot from this experience and I’m grateful for the trust, coordination, and care (shout out to @bunnic) that went into making the process work under difficult conditions.

Always happy to help if there’s a way I can keep contributing going forward. :saluting_face:

2 Likes
3

Subject: [RFC] Structural Upgrade: Solving the S9 Diligence Bottleneck & Reviewer Fatigue

Hello GrantNerds, Council Members, and Delegates,

First, thank you for the brutal transparency in the Season 9 Final Report. It is rare to see a DAO accurately diagnose its own operational friction.

Looking at the data—specifically the 38-application bottleneck in the final cycles and the resulting reviewer fatigue—it is clear that the Council is being forced to act as both strategic decision-makers and data-entry/diligence clerks. With the 12-month pause on Retro Funding and the scrutiny on the remaining 775M OP, front-end diligence and strict milestone tracking are more critical than ever.

Furthermore, the ongoing debate around “random selection” for performance-tracking committees highlights a core issue: the DAO needs high-signal, merit-based external auditing, without expanding the internal political overhead of the Council itself.

The Proposal: Independent Diligence & Data Filtering

To resolve the S9 bottleneck and protect the Council’s bandwidth for Season 10, I propose integrating a lightweight, independent Pre-Processing & Milestone Tracking Layer.

As an independent Data Architect and Web3 Documentation Specialist, I am proposing a trial mandate to serve as an external operational filter for the Council with the following deliverables:

1. Application Pre-Processing & Triage:

Before applications hit the Grants Council’s desk during the end-of-cycle crunch, they pass through a diligence filter. I will structure the data, verify on-chain history, flag potential “copycat” or low-effort submissions, and present the Council with standardized, high-signal summaries. You make the decisions; I do the heavy OSINT and data structuring.

2. Milestone Analytics Matrix:

Designing and maintaining a transparent, asynchronous tracker for approved grants. This removes the administrative burden of chasing grantees for updates and allows Delegates to see milestone compliance at a glance.

3. Budget-Efficient Execution:

Because of the current budget shortfalls caused by OP volatility, building internal DAO committees is expensive. Contracting an independent specialist for a strict, deliverable-based operational sprint (estimated at an $8,000 - $12,000 USDC/OP equivalent for the Season 10 cycle) provides elite throughput without permanent structural overhead.

If there is appetite from the Council leads to offload the administrative and diligence friction before the next cycle begins, I am ready to architect this pipeline immediately.

Would love to hear the Council’s thoughts on externalizing the pre-processing diligence to protect reviewer bandwidth.

4

Thanks for those thoughtful proposal, The Foundation announced they intent to dissolve Grants Council next season. So unsure if this is going to be possible.

5

Thanks for the Season 9 Final Report and the detailed process overview.

However, given the size of the Season 9 grants, where can the community see the actual measurable impact on Optimism / the Superchain (TVL, volume, fees, active users, Superchain adoption)?

Right now we see how much OP was granted, but not what changed on‑chain as a result. Could you please provide:

  • an impact table per intent (pre‑ vs post‑Season 9 metrics), and

  • links to any public dashboards or Dune queries you use to monitor these outcomes?

Without clear impact data, it is very hard for delegates to judge whether Season 9 capital allocation was effective or not.

1 Like
6

@MconnectDAO You have identified the exact structural void created by the impending dissolution of the Grants and Metrics Councils.

@Gonna.eth Thank you for the context on the Council dissolution. Because the Council is dissolving, the DAO is left with a massive data gap. Millions in OP have been distributed, but as MconnectDAO correctly pointed out, the DAO has no centralized, verifiable on-chain impact table (TVL, volume, user retention) to judge the efficacy of Season 9 capital.

We cannot enter Season 10 or restructuring phases without a forensic review of Season 9.

If the DAO lacks the internal bandwidth to aggregate this data due to the dissolutions, I propose executing an independent “Season 9 Impact Autopsy & Dune Dashboard” as a standalone mandate.

As an independent Data Architect, I can provide the community with the exact deliverables MconnectDAO is requesting:

The Impact Table: A comprehensive, intent-by-intent breakdown of pre- vs. post-S9 metrics for major grantees.

The Public Dune Dashboard: A centralized, live-updating query board tracking actual on-chain behavior (Superchain adoption, fee generation, active users) directly correlated to the S9 cohort.

This would be a strict, deliverable-based operational sprint (uncoupled from any persistent Council bureaucracy) to ensure delegates have the raw data necessary to evaluate future capital allocation.

If delegates believe this data is critical before the next structural shifts, I am prepared to draft a formal proposal to build this tracking architecture for the DAO.

1 Like
7

If an independent “Season 9 Impact Autopsy & Dune Dashboard” mandate is drafted, how will the DAO ensure that its findings are formally integrated into Season 10 and any restructuring decisions (e.g., clear impact‑based criteria for future grants, sunsetting underperforming programs, or reallocating OP to higher‑impact verticals) ?

In other words, how do we avoid this becoming just another data artifact, and instead make it a binding input into Optimism’s capital allocation and governance process going forward…? @JulianCross

1 Like
8

@MconnectDAO That is the exact right question. Data without a governance hook is just vanity metrics.

To ensure this Autopsy does not become a forgotten artifact, the mandate must include a “Season 10 Integration Clause.”

The final deliverable will not just be a passive Dune Dashboard. It will include an actionable “Season 10 Baseline Criteria Matrix.” This matrix will translate the raw S9 data (TVL retention, fee generation, active user stickiness) into strict performance thresholds.

The Execution Mechanism:

Before Season 10 officially opens, this Criteria Matrix is presented to the DAO for a snapshot vote. If ratified, it becomes binding code for the upcoming season’s RFP (Request for Proposal) process.

For example: Any returning S9 applicant must demonstrate they met the Baseline TVL retention metric from the Autopsy to be eligible for S10 funding. If they failed the metric, their new proposal requires a mandatory remediation plan.

We bridge the gap between data and execution by making the dashboard the literal Oracle that dictates S10 eligibility. It forces accountability directly into the allocation pipeline.

If the delegates are aligned with this level of structural enforcement, I can formalize the scope of work for this mandate.

1 Like