Forum Posts for [DRAFT] Grants Council Season 4 Charter

This proposal is to be incorporated into the Season 4 grants council proposal. If this proposal passes: In Season 4 , Governance Fund grants process will again be managed by a Grants Council. The Grants Council will be comprised of 1 Lead and 8 Reviewers and will have full decision-making authority as to which grants are made. Non-Council delegates will elect Council members and approve the Council budget. The Council lead will select three elected reviewers to serve enhanced functions: operations, communications, RFG proposals. The operations manager will manage matters such as ensuring reviewer forms always reflect the latest updates, managing the backend (like updating the landing page + forum). The RFG manager will proactively reach out to members of the community to determine what is needed from a development / product perspective and assembles RFGs that the Council can vote to approve. The communications manager will manage the council email and ensure timely responses on the Discord + forum. Council members will be subject to the following checks on their authority: All Council members will be subject to the Delegate Code of Conduct and may be suspended from the Council at any point during the Season via Token House vote. All Reviewers will be subject to re-election if they wish to be a Reviewer for an additional Season (provided the Council were to be approved to continue beyond S 4 ). A high degree of transparency will be required of Council operations so that non-Council Token Holders are able to provide effective oversight. Council Structure If approved, there will be 1 Council, comprised of 2 sub-committees. Each sub-committee will have a clear mandate and be tied to a specific grant objective. The Council will also create requests for proposals, which will represent rewards for projects that suit specific community demands. At the end of Season 4 , the Token House will have the chance to evaluate, re-approve, or modify the two sub-committees. Builders Sub-Committee: Goal 1 : maximize the number of developers building novel applications on Optimism. Goal 2 : maximize the number of builders building novel applications on Optimism. Each goal shall be equivalent. Projects that satisfy one or more goal will be eligible to apply for a builders grant. The sub-committee will publish forms and rubrics in advance of each Cycle in line with the goals of the sub-committee. The sub-committee will incorporate community feedback. Non-goal: retroactive funding Format: proposers receive grants, suggested to be < 50 k OP, which are locked for a period of 1 -year. If access to upfront capital is a blocker for applicants, Optimism may put them in touch with alternative resources to support teams in this position. Budget: 1 mm OP / Season Reviewers: 3 (see below) Consensus: 2 / 3 vote required to fund a grant Experiments Sub-Committee: Goal 1 : maximize the number of users interacting with novel applications on Optimism. Goal 2 : foster the development of technology with tangible use cases that reach end-users. Each goal shall be equivalent. Projects that satisfy one or more goal will be eligible to apply for an Experiments grant. The sub-committee will publish forms and rubrics in advance of each Cycle in line with the goals of the sub-committee. The sub-committee will incorporate community feedback. Non-goal: retroactive airdrops Format: proposers receive milestone-based grants, suggested to be < 150 k OP, to pass on directly to their users as incentives for engaging with a protocol, platform, product or service. 40 % of the grant will be distributed to the proposer upfront and the remaining 60 % will be distributed upon completion of a mid-way point milestone. Completion of all milestones should be achievable in 3 - 6 months, but may extend beyond with sub-committee approval of milestones. Grants are subject to the no-sale rule. Projects may be approved up to 250 k OP, provided the whole Council votes to approve the allocation above 150 k OP. Budget: 2 M OP / Season Reviewers: 5 (see below) Consensus: 3 / 5 vote required to fund a grant Requests for Grants (RFGs) Independent of the two sub-committees, the Council will publish requests for grants based on community feedback for which projects further the broad missions of Optimism: e.g., open-source building and public goods building RFGs will be drafted by the RFG manager and presented to the Council for consideration RFG proposals will be reviewed by the entire Council Each RFG will state the number of projects that may be eligible for grants under the RFG Council may use up to 1 M in RFG budget to reward audits for grantees. These grants will take the form of builders grants. Budget: 2 M OP / Season Reviewers: 8 – entire council Consensus: 5 / 8 vote required to fund grant Multiple grants The Council may consider grants for multiple tracks by the same project / founders The Council may only grant up to the maximum of 250 k OP per project and the Council collectively must vote to approve multiple grants For projects that have both builders and experiments elements, the Council may decide whether the proposal should be considered for only one sub-committee or both The Council will specifically designate if a project is receive grants from both sub-committees and what portion of each such grant is allocable to each sub-committee Council Responsibilities All Council members will be required to abide by the Delegate Code of Conduct . All Council members will be required to disclose all anticipated conflicts of interest when applying to serve on the Council and all actual conflicts of interest in all written voting rationale where a conflict is present. The Grants Council will: filter and process all grant applications. All grant applicants should receive feedback, even if it will not proceed to Council review. If a proposal does not proceed to Council review, reasoning shall be published no later than the start of Season 5 but with an aim toward publication at the end of each Cycle approve grants in regular cycles, which include a deadline for proposal submission before a review period begins publish a report outlining grant decisions for all reviewed proposals (both approvals and rejections) within 3 days of the end of each cycle assess whether grantees have meet pre-defined milestones publish periodic milestone updates, as applicable ensure ongoing Council operations and performance are transparent to the community The Council Lead will oversee the general administration of the grants program and should: ensure applications that are submitted to the Council database are also published to the Forum provision and/or maintain external and internal information about the grants program, and any other resources needed by the Council facilitate coordination across sub-committees by scheduling and hosting regular Council meetings. It is suggested that meeting minutes or summaries be made available to the community. Open meetings are encouraged monitor progress towards milestones and run a process to ensure milestones have been met before milestone-based distributions are made prepare regular reports to communicate grant decisions at the end of each cycle and periodic reports to communicate milestone updates from grantees exercise decision-making authority in the event that sub-committees cannot come to consensus on an administrative or operational matter shall be removable by the Token House based on the recommendation of the Foundation based on a majority vote Reviewers will vote on grant proposals submitted to their sub-committees and should: have the subject matter expertise required to evaluate advanced proposals. It is recommended that at least one member of each sub-committee have a technical background be accessible to grant applicants - within reason - to provide feedback, answer questions, and respond to comments. This should be done via public communication channels whenever possible. It should be clear to grant applicants how to get in touch with the Council work with proposers to ensure proposed milestones are clear, measurable, and achievable within the specified timeframe maintain a participation rate > 70 % on Council votes document voting rationale for each grant provide any information required to publish regular reports and periodic updates in a timely manner dedicate sufficient time on a weekly basis to accomplish the reviewers duties shall be removable by the Token House on the recommendation of the Council Lead or the Foundation based on a majority vote While the Council should abide by the above guidelines, specific operational and administrative details are left to the Council Lead to determine with input from Reviewers. The Council, if/once formed, will be expected to publish an operating framework outlining Council operations in detail. The grants council will not make an explicit or implicit promotion or endorsement of the projects or their underlying products. Rather the grants council will acknowledge which grant proposers are most suited to receive a grant given the parameters applied by the mandate of Season 4 governance. KYC and grants distribution will be managed by the Foundation for Season 4 . All grants are subject to KYC review and other terms.

This proposal is to be incorporated into the Season 4 grants council proposal. If this proposal p… This proposal is to be incorporated into the Season 4 grants council proposal. If this proposal passes: In Season 4 , Governance Fund grants process will again be managed by a Grants Council. The Grants Council will be comprised of 1 Lead and 8 Reviewers and will have full decision-making authority as to which grants are made. Non-Council delegates will elect Council members and approve the Council budget. The Council lead will select three elected reviewers to serve enhanced functions: operations, communications, RFG proposals. The operations manager will manage matters such as ensuring reviewer forms always reflect the latest updates, managing the backend (like updating the landing page + forum). The RFG manager will proactively reach out to members of the community to determine what is needed from a development / product perspective and assembles RFGs that the Council can vote to approve. The communications manager will manage the council email and ensure timely responses on the Discord + forum. Council members will be subject to the following checks on their authority: All Council members will be subject to the Delegate Code of Conduct and may be suspended from the Council at any point during the Season via Token House vote. All Reviewers will be subject to re-election if they wish to be a Reviewer for an additional Season (provided the Council were to be approved to continue beyond S 4 ). A high degree of transparency will be required of Council operations so that non-Council Token Holders are able to provide effective oversight. Council Structure If approved, there will be 1 Council, comprised of 2 sub-committees. Each sub-committee will have a clear mandate and be tied to a specific grant objective. The Council will also create requests for proposals, which will represent rewards for projects that suit specific community demands. At the end of Season 4 , the Token House will have the chance to evaluate, re-approve, or modify the two sub-committees. Builders Sub-Committee: Goal 1 : maximize the number of developers building novel applications on Optimism. Goal 2 : maximize the number of builders building novel applications on Optimism. Each goal shall be equivalent. Projects that satisfy one or more goal will be eligible to apply for a builders grant. The sub-committee will publish forms and rubrics in advance of each Cycle in line with the goals of the sub-committee. The sub-committee will incorporate community feedback. Non-goal: retroactive funding Format: proposers receive grants, suggested to be < 50 k OP, which are locked for a period of 1 -year. If access to upfront capital is a blocker for applicants, Optimism may put them in touch with alternative resources to support teams in this position. Budget: 1 mm OP / Season Reviewers: 3 (see below) Consensus: 2 / 3 vote required to fund a grant Experiments Sub-Committee: Goal 1 : maximize the number of users interacting with novel applications on Optimism. Goal 2 : foster the development of technology with tangible use cases that reach end-users. Each goal shall be equivalent. Projects that satisfy one or more goal will be eligible to apply for an Experiments grant. The sub-committee will publish forms and rubrics in advance of each Cycle in line with the goals of the sub-committee. The sub-committee will incorporate community feedback. Non-goal: retroactive airdrops Format: proposers receive milestone-based grants, suggested to be < 150 k OP, to pass on directly to their users as incentives for engaging with a protocol, platform, product or service. 40 % of the grant will be distributed to the proposer upfront and the remaining 60 % will be distributed upon completion of a mid-way point milestone. Completion of all milestones should be achievable in 3 - 6 months, but may extend beyond with sub-committee approval of milestones. Grants are subject to the no-sale rule. Projects may be approved up to 250 k OP, provided the whole Council votes to approve the allocation above 150 k OP. Budget: 2 M OP / Season Reviewers: 5 (see below) Consensus: 3 / 5 vote required to fund a grant Requests for Grants (RFGs) Independent of the two sub-committees, the Council will publish requests for grants based on community feedback for which projects further the broad missions of Optimism: e.g., open-source building and public goods building RFGs will be drafted by the RFG manager and presented to the Council for consideration RFG proposals will be reviewed by the entire Council Each RFG will state the number of projects that may be eligible for grants under the RFG Council may use up to 1 M in RFG budget to reward audits for grantees. These grants will take the form of builders grants. Budget: 2 M OP / Season Reviewers: 8 – entire council Consensus: 5 / 8 vote required to fund grant Multiple grants The Council may consider grants for multiple tracks by the same project / founders The Council may only grant up to the maximum of 250 k OP per project and the Council collectively must vote to approve multiple grants For projects that have both builders and experiments elements, the Council may decide whether the proposal should be considered for only one sub-committee or both The Council will specifically designate if a project is receive grants from both sub-committees and what portion of each such grant is allocable to each sub-committee Council Responsibilities All Council members will be required to abide by the Delegate Code of Conduct . All Council members will be required to disclose all anticipated conflicts of interest when applying to serve on the Council and all actual conflicts of interest in all written voting rationale where a conflict is present. The Grants Council will: filter and process all grant applications. All grant applicants should receive feedback, even if it will not proceed to Council review. If a proposal does not proceed to Council review, reasoning shall be published no later than the start of Season 5 but with an aim toward publication at the end of each Cycle approve grants in regular cycles, which include a deadline for proposal submission before a review period begins publish a report outlining grant decisions for all reviewed proposals (both approvals and rejections) within 3 days of the end of each cycle assess whether grantees have meet pre-defined milestones publish periodic milestone updates, as applicable ensure ongoing Council operations and performance are transparent to the community The Council Lead will oversee the general administration of the grants program and should: ensure applications that are submitted to the Council database are also published to the Forum provision and/or maintain external and internal information about the grants program, and any other resources needed by the Council facilitate coordination across sub-committees by scheduling and hosting regular Council meetings. It is suggested that meeting minutes or summaries be made available to the community. Open meetings are encouraged monitor progress towards milestones and run a process to ensure milestones have been met before milestone-based distributions are made prepare regular reports to communicate grant decisions at the end of each cycle and periodic reports to communicate milestone updates from grantees exercise decision-making authority in the event that sub-committees cannot come to consensus on an administrative or operational matter shall be removable by the Token House based on the recommendation of the Foundation based on a majority vote Reviewers will vote on grant proposals submitted to their sub-committees and should: have the subject matter expertise required to evaluate advanced proposals. It is recommended that at least one member of each sub-committee have a technical background be accessible to grant applicants - within reason - to provide feedback, answer questions, and respond to comments. This should be done via public communication channels whenever possible. It should be clear to grant applicants how to get in touch with the Council work with proposers to ensure proposed milestones are clear, measurable, and achievable within the specified timeframe maintain a participation rate > 70 % on Council votes document voting rationale for each grant provide any information required to publish regular reports and periodic updates in a timely manner dedicate sufficient time on a weekly basis to accomplish the reviewers duties shall be removable by the Token House on the recommendation of the Council Lead or the Foundation based on a majority vote While the Council should abide by the above guidelines, specific operational and administrative details are left to the Council Lead to determine with input from Reviewers. The Council, if/once formed, will be expected to publish an operating framework outlining Council operations in detail. The grants council will not make an explicit or implicit promotion or endorsement of the projects or their underlying products. Rather the grants council will acknowledge which grant proposers are most suited to receive a grant given the parameters applied by the mandate of Season 4 governance. KYC and grants distribution will be managed by the Foundation for Season 4 . All grants are subject to KYC review and other terms.