The mission of the Builders Sub-Committee is to maximize the number of developers building on Optimism. The members of the Growth Experiments Sub-Committee for Season 3 are:
The following summarizes the basic budget and parameters of the Sub-Committee, as provided for by 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.
| Reach Components | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Presence | Team has no developers | Team has a few developers | Team has many developers | N/A | |
| Developer Draw | Project unlikely to draw more developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw more developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw many developers to Optimism | Project likely to draw a large number of developers or a new desirable class of developers to Optimism | |
| Merits | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Developer Commitment | No commitment attraction | Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end) | Commitment attraction (1 to 3 months after rewards end ) | Commitment attraction (1 year after rewards end) | Commitment attraction (2+ years after rewards end) |
| Likelihood of success | Clear flaw in design that cannot be easily remedied | Difficult to see the project continuing for more than a year | Reasonable chance that the project has intermediate-to-long-term success (+1 Year) | Project is likely to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem | Project has substantial likelihood to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem |
| Grant size | Grant size significantly outweighs projected benefit | Grant size is considerably larger than expected benefit | Grant size is proportional to expected benefit | Expected benefit outweighs grant size | Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size |
| Team assessment | Team does not substantiate ability to deliver on plan | Team does not show significant ability to deliver on plan | Team shows reasonable ability to deliver on plan | Team shows significant ability to deliver on plan | Team exceeds what is required to deliver on plan |
| Milestones | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Milestone Trackability | Not trackable | Somewhat trackable | Easily trackable | ||
| Milestone Orientation | Not oriented toward brining more devs to Optimism | Oriented towards brining more devs to Optimism | Oriented toward more devs and toward making project composable with Optimism ecosystem | ||
| Other | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Demo included (binary yes/no) | No demo included | Demo included | High quality demo included | ||
| -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Discretionary Factors (comment required)** |
**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.
Prior to the beginning of Cycle 11, the Sub-Committee will publish RFPs for categories of projects the Sub-Committee believes have a high likelihood of maximizing the number of users who use Optimism. RFPs will be published to the Governance Forum and on this site. Initial categories of interest include: