Scroll Retroactive Infrastructure Funding

Ecosystem Growth RFI-Apr-2025
1

Title : Scroll Retroactive Infrastructure Funding

Name : @Curia (Scroll Delegate)

Category of your idea : Grant Program

Your idea

The Scroll Retroactive Infrastructure Funding program retroactively rewards teams for delivering measurable, Scroll-native infrastructure that aligns with Scroll’s mission to scale Ethereum for billions of users. By distributing rewards based on demonstrated outcomes rather than promises, the program incentivizes high-quality contributions to critical layers, sequencers, rollups, oracles, bridges, and developer tooling.

This model draws inspiration from Optimism Retroactive Funding (RetroPGF) & Obol Retroactive Funding (RAF1) which receive rewards project or contributor for their impact to the ecosystem. Scroll’s program emphasizes impact, where positive impact to the Scroll ecosystem should be rewarded.

Eligibility Criteria

  1. Scroll-Native Infrastructure
    • Projects must be live on Scroll mainnet or testnet and integrated with Scroll’s core components (sequencer, data availability, tooling).
  2. Proven Impact
    • Applicants must demonstrate quantitative outcomes such as total transactions handled, uptime, number of active developers/users, or integrations adopted in production environments.
  3. Open-Source Requirement
    • Code must be publicly accessible under open-source license (like MIT, Apache 2.0, or GPL) so anyone can freely view, check, and build on your work.
  4. Compliance and KYC
    • Team leads must comply with Scroll Foundation’s KYC and disclose any potential conflict of interest.

Governance & Council Structure

  • Retrofunding Council
    • Comprised of 7–11 members including Scroll core team representatives, independent developers, and community delegates.
  • Selection & Accountability
    • Council members are nominated by the community and ratified via onchain voting.
    • All members must disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Decision Making
    • Council reviews eligibility, verifies metrics, and finalizes scores.

Process & Detailed Timeline

Phase Duration Activities
1. Call for Submissions Weeks 1–5 Public announcement; applicants submit evidence of impact
2. Council Review Weeks 6–8 Eligibility checks; metric verification; scoring
3. Community Voting Weeks 9–11 Snapshot vote on scored applicants; quadratic voting option for community delegates
4. Results & Payout Weeks 12–13 Publish outcomes; execute retroactive SCR distribution; retrospective report published

Budget & Allocation

  • Total Pool: 1,500,000 SCR (≈ $500 K)

Communication & Transparency

  • All application materials, scoring rubrics, and council deliberation minutes will be published on a public dashboard within one week of phase completion.
  • Retrospective reports will highlight lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations for future rounds.

Roles & Responsibilities

  • Scroll Community:
    • Nominate council members; participate in onchain voting.
  • Retrofunding Council:
    • Verify eligibility; score impact; oversee payout.
  • Scroll Foundation Admin:
    • Operational support; KYC compliance; dashboard maintenance.
2 Likes
2

We’re generally very supportive of retro infrastructure funding. The main thing we’d like to see changed vs this current proposal is a much longer announcement period. We’d be supportive of announcing the initiative well in advance and building broader awareness before formally starting the application round. For Optimism’s retroactive funding rounds, the detailed scope of each round has been announced 8-12 weeks before its start. It gives time for the community to build up hype and boosts overall engagement levels. Happy to see this proposal here though, thanks @Curia.

3

Thanks for sharing this idea, @Curia.

I had a few follow-up questions to better understand the long-term vision and practical details:

  1. Do you envision this retroactive funding program as a one-time initiative or something that could run on a recurring or rolling basis (e.g., quarterly or yearly)?

    • Personally I do think it makes sense to think of it as a recurring one, recognizing that an initial proposal would cover a specific amount of rounds (say 2-3).

  2. Curious to hear your thoughts on:
    a) What kind of evaluation approach could help avoid “popularity contest” dynamics in voting?
    b) What’s your perspective on using retro funding to incentivize any onchain activity, regardless of intent - as seen in some discussions like Optimism?

  3. What is your feeling in terms of eligibility: Will any Scroll-based project be eligible, or will the first round focus on specific verticals like DeFi?

  4. On impact metrics - could you share your vision for how they might be measured and weighted? It would be helpful to hear any lessons or inspiration from other ecosystems like Optimism, which has iterated on a “metrics-driven, humans-in-the-loop” model for retro funding.

  5. On the governance side, establishing a Council is a recurring theme in several RFIs. I’d love to hear your thoughts on who you believe should be part of this group (e.g., core contributors, DAO delegates, external experts), and if you’ve considered what the operational costs or compensation structure for council members might look like.

Looking forward to learning more on what you think about the questions raised.

4

From our perspective, this would be a helpful way to encourage the Scroll Native Infrastructure Teams for the work they have done.

We are not sure about putting this to a vote. From our end, we would prefer if the council reviewed submissions rigorously and, after selection, submitted a report justifying its rationale for each selection.

We believe that just beyond retroactive funding, the DAO definitely needs a dedicated Grants/Accelerator Program for Infrastructure Projects, so that, as the DAO grows its balance sheet, it can invest in these Scroll Native Infra Projects and capture the upside.