# Proposal: DAO DeFi Grant Program

**URL:** <https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-dao-defi-grant-program/499>\
**Category:** Ecosystem Growth\
**Tags:** proposal\
**Created:** [February 20, 2025, 5:32pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-dao-defi-grant-program/499 "2025-02-20T17:32:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pedro](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/forum.scroll.io/pedro/32/169_2.png) [@pedro](https://forum.scroll.io/u/pedro)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2025, 2:49pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-dao-defi-grant-program/499/6 "2025-02-21T14:49:32Z")

</div>

gm

Thanks for moving forward with this more general proposal for DeFi applications. I think it makes sense.

I served as an advisor (proposal reviewer) in two of the incentive programs conducted by Arbitrum DAO to date.

Here are some recommendations based on my experience.

> [@eugene](#):
>
> The review will take place on a rolling basis, with a clear deadline. It will be at the discretion of the Review Committee as to whether they want to do some reviews as applications are coming in, or if they want to do all of the review once the application window has closed and before the review window concludes.

I recommend defining this very clearly and not leaving it to the discretion of either the applicants or the reviewers. If there will be multiple review stages, the deadlines should also be well-defined.

Applicants tend to submit at the last minute (which makes sense if they’re focused on building), leading to a sudden influx of proposals. This, in turn, lowers the quality of the reviews.

I suggest setting clear and staggered deadlines to mitigate this issue.

> [@eugene](#):
>
> 1. Initial screen will happen automatically as grants are submitted
> 
> - A basic check for completeness of the application
> 
> - This process will be completed automatically via CharmVerse (ensuring all relevant information is shared)

I also recommend being strict about this—something like: If the application is incomplete, it will not be reviewed or receive feedback.

Otherwise, you might encourage laziness or incomplete submissions. It may seem like a minor issue, but when a large number of applications come in, wasting time reviewing incomplete ones becomes frustrating.

> [@eugene](#):
>
> First, they will ensure that projects fit into the scope of the program requirements

I also recommend refining the criteria for projects applying to the two tiers. When is something considered a PoC, and when is it already an MVP?

The answer may seem obvious, but in practice, many gray areas arise. At the very least, providing a clear definition of what is meant to be incentivized will help.

> [@eugene](#):
>
> Second, they will assess the quality of the applications and whether or not they would recommend funding the application

The quality will depend on the program’s objectives. Is the goal to onboard new applications or new teams? To incentivize those already building on Scroll? Both?

And how do you define DeFi applications? That’s another one that may seem obvious but often leads to gray areas—like a social app with some integrated DeFi features.

> [@eugene](#):
>
> Recurring calls every other week to provide project updates and asks, to hear about what kind of support might be needed in the group, and to generally explore how to best ensure the grantee success

Will this be in charge of the evaluation committee?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-dao-defi-grant-program/499)._