<h1>
<a name="committees-1" href="#committees-1"></a>Committees</h1>
Hello community! This post will serve as a discussion thread to solve for one of the biggest challenges faced by the Token House so far. The main idea is to reduce delegate overload by introducing a notion of “committees” which are tasked by the collective to focus on specific subsets of proposals.
If approved, this proposal will remain in effect for one season (~3 months)—think of it as an experiment. This will allow for testing and reflection on whether or not committees are beneficial to the governance process before making any decisions that are difficult to reverse.
<h2>
<a name="problems-to-solve-2" href="#problems-to-solve-2"></a>Problems to Solve</h2>
We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems:
<h3>
<a name="h-1-information-overload-for-delegates-3" href="#h-1-information-overload-for-delegates-3"></a>1. Information Overload for Delegates</h3>
There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates.
<h3>
<a name="h-2-purpose-mismatch-for-delegates-4" href="#h-2-purpose-mismatch-for-delegates-4"></a>2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates</h3>
Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so.
<h3>
<a name="why-committees-should-solve-these-problems-5" href="#why-committees-should-solve-these-problems-5"></a>Why committees should solve these problems</h3>
This problem may be alleviated by segmenting the work of assessing proposals among smaller, focused groups (”committees”). These committees will primarily perform information filtering and synthesis so that delegates aren’t overloaded with information. Delegates that specialize in a particular topic can defer to the recommendation of relevant committees on topics outside their area of expertise/interest.
<h1>
<a name="introducing-committees-6" href="#introducing-committees-6"></a>Introducing committees
</h1>
In Season 2, we will experiment with a new proposal type: committee formation.
Committee formation proposals may only be submitted by delegates with &gt;0.5% of voting power and will be accepted only for Voting Cycle #5, requiring submission before 7p GMT on Aug 25 in order to be included in Voting Cycle #5. There is no requirement for all committee members to have &gt;0.5% of votable supply, but at least one member must in order to submit the proposal. Phase 1 committee formation proposals should follow <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/phase-1-committee-formation-proposal-template/3281">this template</a> and should be posted for feedback 1 week in advance of the start of Voting Cycle #5. This proposal type may be added to the operating manual in Season 3.
A maximum of 4 committee formation proposals will be ratified for the duration of Season 2. Up to 4 committee proposals (measured by OP voting “Yes”) will be implemented at the start of Season 2 (with Voting Cycle #6) on Sept 8. If more than 4 committees are proposed, the 4 committees with the most votes will be implemented. Votes will be ranked across all categories. We would like to encourage a diversity of committee types and recommend delegates only vote “yes” for their top 1-2 committees in each category.
Committees will operate primarily via social contract and, apart from governance-approved OP rewards for committee participation, will not directly manage tokens. Instead, committees will vet, research, and discuss proposals, then make highly visible recommendations to non-committee delegates at the time of voting. Committee members will receive OP rewards to incentivize this work.
By approving a committee, delegates are entering a social contract to entrust and delegate the bulk of decision-making to the committee. They are expected to follow the recommendation of committees, except in extreme circumstances, such as:
<ul>
<li>undisclosed conflict-of-interest by the committee</li>
<li>perceived corruption or self-dealing</li>
<li>suspected operational security compromise/committee accounts hacked</li>
</ul>
Committee members may vote against the recommendation of their own committee, but recommendations should include a list of any dissenting committee members along with their reasoning.
Delegates not serving on committees will still be responsible for signing all their own votes. If delegates vote against the recommendation of the committee, they will be expected to post their reasoning in the forum roundup thread. To address concerns about a drop-off in non-committee delegate participation, the Optimism Foundation will track this data and re-evaluate the structure of committees if we see a meaningful decrease.
We believe this approach will address the feedback we received in Season 1 in a governance-minimized way, limiting the complexity introduced into voting or proposal processes. The Foundation will continue to handle the administrative work of sending OP to governance-approved grant recipients, as in Season 1.
<h1>
<a name="foundation-recommendations-7" href="#foundation-recommendations-7"></a>Foundation Recommendations</h1>
While it’s the Token House’s ultimate decision on what this season’s four committees should specialize in, our initial recommendation is: 2 DeFi committees specializing in different focus areas, NFTs, and Tooling. If 4 committees are not necessary, fewer committees may be approved.
We have updated the cap on the number of committees to accommodate the potential creation of two distinct DeFi committees. In the event that two DeFi committees are approved, each committee should handle proposals related to distinct focus areas. If &gt;1 DeFi committee proposal is submitted, each committee should specify an area of specialization so that there would not be a case where two committees are making recommendations on the same proposal. While committees may provide recommendations for proposals that fall outside their domain, only the recommendation of the most directly relevant committee will be surfaced and included on Snapshot. In the event that there is a proposal that does not fall clearly within any of the approved committees, it will be up to the committees to decide which committee will provide a recommendation.
These committees will dissolve at the end of Season 2, and the following Reflection Period will allow the Token House to renew existing committees or propose new ones.
We put forward the following guidelines for committees:
<ul>
<li>Each committee must consist of a Committee Lead and up to 4 other Committee Members. Committee Leads will be responsible for general coordination of the committee and publishing recommendation analyses on behalf of the committee.</li>
<li>Committees will self-determine how they reach consensus on the recommendations that are put forward to delegates. This process may be different across committees.</li>
<li>Committees will be expected to operate transparently by communicating in open channels and sharing information in public forums. Even if decision-making processes differ, they should communicate similar information in a consistent place.</li>
<li>Committees will also be expected to publish a report on their process, learnings, and outcomes at the end of the Season.</li>
<li>If something is not clearly outlined in this post or the operating manual, committees have decision making authority over their own operations, and may decide to make exceptions for proposers at their discretion</li>
</ul>
Based on Reflection Period feedback, we are recommending the following compensation structure. This will be paid out of the Governance Fund in $OP.
Each of the approved committees will receive a base level of rewards in the amount of $10k equivalent in $OP, to be distributed among committee members. This budget is meant to support 5 committee members, including a committee lead. Since workload is unlikely to be standardized across committees, at the end of the season, an additional $10k equivalent per committee in $OP rewards will be allocated between committees based on relative workload and contribution during the season. Please note that all committee members that receive compensation will need to be KYC’d. KYC information will be collected privately by the Optimism Foundation.
Similar compensation discussions in other communities frequently gets heated and becomes unproductive. For this reason, and to avoid unnecessary conflict, the Optimism Foundation will make the final decision on committee compensation for Season 2. If the community feels that this structure is severely off the mark, they can voice that during this Reflection Period, but the Optimism Foundation will override if discussion becomes unproductive or loses civility. Incentives for non-committee delegates is out of scope for Season 2, but something on the roadmap for Season 3.
<h1>
<a name="open-questions-8" href="#open-questions-8"></a>Open Questions</h1>
What would the community like to see in the proposal template for the creation of a new committee? → You can provide feedback on the Phase 1 Committee Formation Proposal Template <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/phase-1-committee-formation-proposal-template/3281">here</a>
What is the best way for committees to communicate with each other and with non-committee delegates to maximize transparency? → this is something to be specified in the proposal template
What is the best mechanism by which to hold committees accountable at the end of, and during, a season?

Introducing Governance Committees 
  Committees 
 Hello community! This post will serve as a discussion thread to

Introducing Governance Committees

<h1>
<a name="to-apply-for-a-grant-through-the-grants-council-please-go-herehttpsappcharmverseioop-grantspage-701220845245208-1" href="#to-apply-for-a-grant-through-the-grants-council-please-go-herehttpsappcharmverseioop-grantspage-701220845245208-1"></a>To apply for a grant through the Grants Council, please go <a href="https://app.charmverse.io/op-grants/page-701220845245208">here 11</a>
</h1>
<h2>
<a name="phase-1-proposal-template-v2-2" href="#phase-1-proposal-template-v2-2"></a>Phase 1 Proposal Template v2</h2>
All Governance Fund grant proposals will be processed by a Grants Council in Season 3. Please submit your application to the Grants Council <a href="https://foul-porch-0eb.notion.site/Optimism-Grants-Council-090bb648d1854136b9630c608da7a8bc">here 82</a> following the process outlined <a href="https://foul-porch-0eb.notion.site/Grants-Council-Internal-Procedures-504521342ee0402980321c56f1488542">here 57</a>.
<h2>
<a name="all-cycle-11-grant-proposals-should-use-the-updated-template-herehttpsgovoptimismiotgrants-proposal-template-cycle-115291-3" href="#all-cycle-11-grant-proposals-should-use-the-updated-template-herehttpsgovoptimismiotgrants-proposal-template-cycle-115291-3"></a>ALL CYCLE 11 GRANT PROPOSALS SHOULD USE THE UPDATED TEMPLATE <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/grants-proposal-template-cycle-11/5291">HERE</a>.</h2>
<hr />
<h2>
<a name="key-information-about-governance-fund-grants-4" href="#key-information-about-governance-fund-grants-4"></a>Key information about Governance Fund grants</h2>
5.4% of the total initial token supply (231,928,234 OP) will be distributed to Optimism projects and communities via the Governance Fund. A portion of the Governance Fund may be used to provide OP grants. There are two primary objectives of Governance Fund grants in Season 3:
<ul>
<li>
Grow population of values-aligned builders: The Governance Fund should support developers launching novel applications that will draw new users to Optimism.</li>
<li>
Support small scale initiatives to grow unique users on Optimism: The Governance Fund may also support protocols by incentivizing small scale user growth initiatives.</li>
</ul>
Larger scale partnerships with protocols that have already found product-market fit are better suited to the <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/op-governance-update-1-june-9-2022/2620">Partner Fund 40</a>.
For further details on the governance fund, please see the <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/governance-fund-charter/3944">Governance Fund Charter 14</a>.
<hr />
During Season 3, projects can submit grant proposals to the Grants Council. The Council is split into two sub-committees:
<ul>
<li>
Builders Sub-Committee:
<ul>
<li>Focus: maximize the number of developers building on Optimism</li>
<li>Non-focus: retroactive funding</li>
<li>Possible grant examples: prospective builder grants for new projects, hackathons, technical content</li>
<li>Format: proposers receive grants, suggested to be &lt;50k 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.</li>
<li>Budget: 850k OP / Season</li>
<li>Reviewers: <a href="/u/gonna.eth">@gonna.eth</a>, <a href="/u/kaereste">@kaereste</a>, and <a href="/u/jackanorak">@jackanorak</a>
</li>
<li>Consensus: 2/3 vote required to fund a grant</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
Growth Experiments Sub-Committee:
<ul>
<li>Focus: maximize the number of users interacting with applications on Optimism</li>
<li>Non-focus: retroactive airdrops</li>
<li>Possible grant examples: small-scale liquidity mining experiments, usage incentives, user education</li>
<li>Format: proposers receive milestone-based grants, suggested to be &lt;250k 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.</li>
<li>Budget: 4M OP / Season</li>
<li>Reviewers: <a href="/u/michael">@Michael</a>, <a href="/u/katie">@katie</a>, <a href="/u/gfxlabs">@GFXlabs</a>, <a href="/u/mattl">@MattL</a>, and <a href="/u/moneymandoug">@MoneyManDoug</a>
</li>
<li>Consensus: 3/5 vote required to fund a grant</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
The Council is welcome to consider any and all proposals which would drive growth or address a gap in the Optimism ecosystem, including public goods projects. However, all grant funding should come with an expectation of growth-related deliverables. It is not the intended purpose of the governance fund to retroactively fund public goods without an expectation of future work—there is a distinct OP allocation dedicated to this, which will be distributed via the Citizens House at a later date. You can read more about the total allocation of OP in the <a href="https://community.optimism.io/docs/governance/allocations.html">Allocations section 13 19</a> of our <a href="https://community.optimism.io/docs/governance/">Governance docs 10 11</a>.The Council may also put forward Requests for Proposals for particular grant proposals they would like to review.
<h2>
<a name="how-to-apply-for-a-governance-fund-grant-5" href="#how-to-apply-for-a-governance-fund-grant-5"></a>How to apply for a Governance Fund grant</h2>
To submit a proposal, please submit your application to the Grants Council <a href="https://foul-porch-0eb.notion.site/Optimism-Grants-Council-090bb648d1854136b9630c608da7a8bc">here 82</a> following the process outlined <a href="https://foul-porch-0eb.notion.site/Grants-Council-Internal-Procedures-504521342ee0402980321c56f1488542">here 57</a>. The application will follow the below template, which you should complete via the <a href="https://foul-porch-0eb.notion.site/Application-2d47da131a004e94a74e56af9438026b">application form 37</a>.
Please make sure you are familiar with the no-sale policy outlined below, under Eligibility, before applying.
<h3>
<a name="grant-proposal-template-6" href="#grant-proposal-template-6"></a>Grant Proposal Template</h3>
<blockquote>
Project name:
Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact for the project):
I understand that I will be required to provide additional KYC information to the Optimism Foundation to receive this grant: [Yes/No]
I understand that I will be expected to following the public grant reporting requirements outlined <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/suggested-public-reporting-requirements-for-grantees/4176">here</a>: [Yes/No]
L2 recipient address:
Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?:
Which sub-committee should review your proposal? (Builders Grants, Growth Experiment Grants)
Project description (please explain how your project works):
Project links:
<ul>
<li>Website:</li>
<li>Twitter:</li>
<li>Discord/Discourse/Community:</li>
<li>Please include all other relevant links below:</li>
</ul>
Additional team member info (please link):
Please link to any previous projects the team has meaningfully contributed to:
Relevant usage metrics (TVL, transactions, volume, unique addresses, etc. Optimism metrics preferred; please link to public sources such as Dune Analytics, etc.):
Competitors, peers, or similar projects (please link):
Is/will this project be open sourced? Yes/No/In Future
Optimism native?: Yes/No
Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism:
Ecosystem Value Proposition:
<ul>
<li>What is the problem statement this proposal hopes to solve for the Optimism ecosystem?</li>
<li>How does your proposal offer a value proposition solving the above problem?</li>
<li>Why will this solution be a source of growth for the Optimism ecosystem?</li>
</ul>
Has your project previously applied for an OP grant? If successful, please link to your previous grant proposal and provide a brief update on milestones achieved with the grant. If unsuccessful, and this is a resubmission, please specify how you have incorporated significant changes in accordance with feedback.
Number of OP tokens requested:
Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?: Yes/No/In Process
If OP tokens were requested from the Foundation Partner Fund, what was the amount?:
How much will your project match in co-incentives? (not required but recommended, when applicable):
Proposal for token distribution:
<ul>
<li>How will the OP tokens be distributed? (please include % allocated to different initiatives such as user rewards/marketing/liquidity mining. Please also include a justification as to why each of these initiatives align with the problem statement this proposal is solving.)</li>
<li>Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed for each initiative? Shorter timelines are preferable to longer timelines. Shorter timelines (on the order of weeks) allow teams to quickly demonstrate achievement of milestones, better facilitating additional grants via subsequent proposals.</li>
<li>Please clearly define the milestones you expect to achieve in order to receive milestone based installments. Please consider how each milestone relates to incentivizing sustainable usage and liquidity on Optimism. Progress towards each milestone must be trackable.</li>
<li>Why will incentivized users and liquidity on Optimism remain after incentives dry up?</li>
</ul>
Please provide any additional information that will facilitate accountability:(smart contracts addresses relevant to the proposal, relevant organizational wallet addresses, etc.)
</blockquote>
<h2>
<a name="eligibility-considerations-7" href="#eligibility-considerations-7"></a>Eligibility considerations</h2>
The below restrictions may not map with 100% clarity onto all possible scenarios. In the spirit of <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/working-constitution-of-the-optimism-collective/55">governance minimization 10</a>, the Optimism Foundation will not police the application of these rules. Instead, it is the directive of the Token House to apply these parameters consistent with the purpose of the Governance Fund: driving sustainable usage and engagement on Optimism (rather than simply providing teams with working capital or voting power).
OP received through Growth Experiments Grants should not be sold by the grant recipient. This “no sale” rule:
<ul>
<li>
Includes the grant recipient, their affiliates and any other related persons. These persons cannot receive OP for the purpose of selling (or if the grant recipient knows they intend to sell) the tokens.</li>
<li>
Includes the direct exchange of OP for crypto or fiat, whether done publicly or privately. Think selling OP in exchange for fiat or crypto, regardless of whether done on a CEX, DEX, OTC desk, at your local park, or otherwise.</li>
<li>
Does not include using OP to incentivize usage. Providing OP as liquidity mining incentives is not restricted by these parameters.</li>
<li>There is no expiration to this rule for Growth Experiments Grants</li>
</ul>
OP received through Builders Grants should not be sold by the grant recipient for a period of one year. After a holding period of one year, Builders Grant recipients have full discretion over how they utilize OP, so long as it coincides with the objectives outlined in their proposal.
You can read more about the reasoning behind the token locks <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/grant-token-lock-explainer/5060">here 14</a>.
The expectation is that token grants will not be self-delegated for use in governance. The primary purpose of these token grants is to incentivize sustainable usage and growth of the Optimism ecosystem. Accordingly, for partners interested in increasing their voting power, the preferred route is by encouraging users to delegate their rewards to your governance representatives. There is no hard restriction on self-delegation, but if you plan to delegate a portion or all of your grant tokens to your own protocol, or a closely affiliated party, this should be made clear in your grant proposal along with your reasoning.

Grant Proposal Template [OLD] 
  To apply for a grant through the Grants Council, please go

Grant Proposal Template [OLD]

<h1>
<a name="governance-update-3-time-to-reflect-1" href="#governance-update-3-time-to-reflect-1"></a>Governance Update #3: Time to Reflect
</h1>
Wow–it feels like the past two months have absolutely flown by! This governance update includes a brief recap of Season 1, and a collection of documents which the Optimism Foundation has prepared for Season 2. If you want to shape how Season 2 of OP governance works, now’s your chance – please come contribute to the discussions!
<h2>
<a name="season-1-voting-recap-2" href="#season-1-voting-recap-2"></a>Season 1 Voting Recap
</h2>
With the conclusion of Voting Cycle #4, Season 1 of Token House governance has officially wrapped! For the past eight weeks, Token House delegates have been reviewing and voting on Governance Fund grant proposals from projects spanning the Optimism ecosystem.
In the first four voting cycles, the Token House approved 41 project grants and rejected 18 proposals. 42.6mm OP has been approved for Governance Fund grants and 30.6 mm OP has been distributed to projects already. You can track grant distributions <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eaHOlWB34ij1KGsXdaNyTQg4tt1Pu2JurJsElBb6a8k/edit#gid=0">here 45</a>. For a summary of these cycles, see the <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle-1-roundup/2619">Cycle #1 24</a>, <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle-2-roundup/2754">Cycle #2 15</a>, or <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle-3-roundup/2923/11">Cycle #3 13</a>, and <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle-4-roundup/3055">Cycle #4 29</a> roundup threads.
We will briefly pause Voting Cycles to allow for a Reflection Period as we prepare for Season 2 of governance. Delegates will have a three-week period to reflect on Season 1 and provide feedback on our proposed changes for Season 2. Proposal authors should expect a new structure and updated process for Voting Cycle #6 (the next grant voting cycle), so please stay tuned for more information on a new and improved governance process! Proposers are welcome to draft grant proposals during the Reflection Period and Voting Cycle #5, but those proposals won’t be voted on until Voting Cycle #6.
<h2>
<a name="what-to-expect-3" href="#what-to-expect-3"></a>What to Expect
</h2>
<ul>
<li>The Reflection Period will last from August 4th - August 24th, during which time there will be no active votes</li>
<li>During the Reflection Period, we are welcoming community feedback on the v0.2 Operating Manual and other governance proposals aimed at improving Season 2 (linked below)</li>
<li>A Special Voting Cycle #5 will begin after the Reflection Period and will run for 13 days, from Aug 25 at 7p GMT until Sept 7 at 7p GMT. This voting cycle will only include process improvements and will not include grant proposals</li>
<li>Season 2 will begin on September 8 with Voting Cycle #6, which will resume all proposals. The governance process will follow the v0.2 Operating Manual and any new processes approved in Special Voting Cycle #5.</li>
</ul>
<h2>
<a name="time-to-reflect-4" href="#time-to-reflect-4"></a>Time to Reflect
</h2>
Eight weeks ago, the Optimism Collective launched with a minimal governance framework and <a href="https://optimism.mirror.xyz/r888e4B5iiNQi-3_mO26ixgv-plQ099XWgqEOv9iWKA">an intention to iterate 6</a>. In our last Governance update, we highlighted <a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/governance-update-2/3056">key feedback 5</a> from delegates and community members regarding improvements that could be made for Season 2.
Below are a series of proposed updates that take this feedback into account. While changes to the Operating Manual don’t require a formal vote, feedback during the Reflection Period from delegates and the broader community is a crucial input towards making the next season the best it can be. Any proposals that fall outside the scope of the Operating Manual will be put up for Token House vote, as indicated below.
Here are the documents we’re asking for community feedback on as we gear up for Season 2:
<ul>
<li>A draft of Operating Manual v0.2!
<ul>
<li><a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-operating-manual-v0-2/3234">Forum thread for discussion 35</a></li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/OPerating-manual/pull/5">Pull request 14</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/introducing-governance-committees/3238">Committee Proposals 33</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gov.optimism.io/t/grant-proposal-template-v2/3233">Proposal Template v2</a></li>
</ul>
Collecting feedback on these documents will constitute the majority of the Reflection Period. Once feedback is incorporated and Special Voting Cycle #5 has concluded, these documents will form the basis of Season 2 governance.
We’re so grateful to our community for taking part in our first governance experiment. Given your active participation, constructive feedback, and thoughtful reflection, you can probably guess how we’re feeling about Season 2. 
And, as always,
Stay Optimistic!

Introducing Governance Committees

Grant Proposal Template [OLD]

Governance Update #3

Got something to add?