Season 5 master rubrics

	A	B	C	D	E	F
1			Intent 1: Progress towards technical decentralization
2	IntakeFilter
3	OP relationship (Binary)	no, out of the grants	yes, continue
4	Security category (optional)	No concrete treatment of security concerns	Full description of likely risks and mitigations regarding security, user funds, and other concerns of that nature
5	Opensource	no go	go
6	Score	Builders Rubric
7	Score	0	1	2	3	4
8	Infrastructure Draw	Project unlikely to draw more Infrastructure to Optimism	Project likely to draw more Infrastructure to Optimism	Project likely to draw many Infrastructure to Optimism	Project likely to draw many builders to Optimism who focus on Infrastructure novel products	Project likely to draw a large number of builders who focus on Infrastructure novel products
9	Builder 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)
10	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
11	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 are 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 sometihng similar and this is not merely a different way of performing an existing operation	This project is at the vanguard of development and is meaningfully different from other projects in Web3.
12	Grant size	Grant size significantly outweighs projected benefit	Grant size is considerably larger than 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 grant size	Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size
13	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 has substantial relevant experience and shows significant ability to deliver on plan	Team's track record exceeds what is required to deliver on plan
14	Milestones	0	1	2
15	Milestone Trackability	Not trackable	Somewhat trackable	Easily trackable
16	Milestones accountability	Not clear or not articulated roadmap	Reasonable but plausible roadmap	well-defined and highly achievable roadmap
17	Milestone Orientation	Not oriented toward brining more decentralization to Optimism	Oriented towards brining more decentralization to Optimism	Oriented toward more decentralization and toward making project composable with Optimism ecosystem
18	Alignment	0	1	2
19	Optimism Relationship	Technology part of a rollout for universal (ie not just OP) use		Deployed on Optimism and focused on Optimism
20	Demo included (binary yes/no)	No demo or poor demo included		High-quality demo included
21	Other	-2	-1	0	1	2
22	Discretionary Factors*
23	Timely Submission		Proposal submitted in last 48 hours of Submission Period	Proposal submitted in second week of Submission Period	Proposal submitted in first week of Submission Period
24	*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.
25
26	Proposer Conduct
27
28	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.
29
30
31
32
33	-1	Clearly has not read materials relevant to the grants process
34	-1	Not responsive to basic outreach
35	-2	Unwilling to accept feedback
36	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.
37	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.
38	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.
39	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.
40	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.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100