The mission of the Builders Sub-Committee is to maximize the number of builders (developers and visionaries) building novel applications on Optimism. The members of the Builders Sub-Committee for Season 4 are:
The following summarizes the basic budget and parameters of the Sub-Committee, as provided for by the Token House vote.
Review Rubric
The Rubric for grading initial proposals should be used by Sub-Committee members based on the criteria in the table below. To pass from Preliminary Review to the Final Review, a proposer much achieve an average score of 20 or higher from the two preliminary reviewers.
| Builder Reach | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Builder draw | Project unlikely to draw more builders to Optimism | Project likely to draw more builders to Optimism | The project likely to draw many builders to Optimism | The project is likely to draw many builders to Optimism who focus on building novel products | The project is likely to draw a large number of builders who focus on building novel products |
| Development of OP Stack | The project will lead to the deployment of very few smart contracts on Optimism | The project will lead to the deployment of a small number of smart contracts on Optimism | The project will lead to the deployment of a moderate number of smart contracts on Optimism | The project will lead to the deployment of many smart contracts on Optimism | The project will lead to the deployment of a very large (scalable) number of smart contracts on Optimism |
| Merits | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Builder commitment | No commitment attraction | Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end) | Commitment attraction (1 – 3 months after rewards end) | Commitment attraction (1 year after rewards end) | Commitment attraction (2+ years after rewards end) |
| Likelihood of success | There's a clear flaw in the design that cannot be easily remedied | Difficult to see the project continuing for more than a year | There's a reasonable chance that the project has intermediate-to-long-term success (+1 Year) | The project is likely to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem | The project has a substantial likelihood of generating long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem |
| 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 is 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 on the horizon and is meaningfully different from other projects in Web3. |
| Grant size | Grant size significantly outweighs the projected benefit | Grant size is considerably larger than the 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 the grant size | Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size |
| Team assessment | The team does not substantiate the ability to deliver on the plan | The team does not show significant ability to deliver on the plan | The team shows a reasonable ability to deliver on the plan | The team shows a significant ability to deliver on the plan | The team exceeds what is required to deliver on the plan |
| Milestones | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Milestone trackability | Not trackable | Somewhat trackable | Easily trackable | ||
| Milestone orientation | Not oriented toward bringing more builders to Optimism | Oriented towards bringing more builders to Optimism | Oriented toward more builders and toward making project composable with Optimism ecosystem | ||
| Alignment | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Optimism relationship | Not deployed on Optimism and no indication (beyond grant application) of an intent to deploy on Optimism | Not deployed on Optimism, but has given a reasonable indication of an intention to deploy on Optimism | Deployed on Optimism and focused on Optimism | ||
| Open-sourcing | Not open-source | Currently or initially open-source, but not committed to an open-source model | Committed to a long-term open-source model | ||
| The demo is included (binary yes/no) | No demo or poor demo included | High-quality demo included | |||
| Other | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Timely Submission | Proposal submitted in last 48 hours of Submission Period | Proposal submitted in the second week of the Submission Period | Proposal submitted in the first week of the Submission Period | ||
| Discretionary Factors* | |||||
| *Reviewers will have a discretionary score to apply to the overall rubric of (-2 to 2). An explanation must be included with the assignment of any discretionary score. |
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.
| Score | Motive |
|---|---|
| -1 | Clearly has not read materials relevant to the grants process |
| -1 | Not responsive to basic outreach |
| -2 | Unwilling to accept feedback |
| 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. |