Scroll Retroactive Infrastructure Funding

[Curia]

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.

[kevinknielsen]

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.

[eugene]

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.

[Kene_StableLab]

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.

[Curia]

@eugene

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).

Thanks for commenting @eugene

We envision this retroactive funding program operating on a recurring basis, improving with feedback from each round. In every bi-annually, we target a specific vertical to ensure we support the crucial projects Scroll needs to grow its ecosystem, and we apply tailored metrics for each round to evaluate its value, incorporating learnings from prior rounds and refining our data pipelines, scoring parameters, and outreach strategy.

@eugene

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?

We believe the first round should focus specifically on vertical DeFi infrastructure, as this remains an area of relative potential for improvement within the Scroll ecosystem. By supporting foundational DeFi projects, we can address this gap and create a stronger base for future ecosystem growth.

@Kene_StableLab

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

@eugene

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?

@Kene_StableLab Thanks for your suggestion. For the first round, we believe it would be better to experiment with a more centralized approach, following the upcoming Ecosystem Growth Council.

As you mentioned, @eugene regarding some aspects of the Optimism model, we think there are elements of that approach that are well worth adopting. In this model, the council would vote to select the algorithm, reflecting a data-driven evaluation with humans in the loop. This process can eliminate popularity contests and lock in objective rules clearly by defining each metric (TVL, Transaction Counts, Gas Fees, and Monthly Active Users) and the relevant variants within each metric (Adoption, Growth, and Retention), similar to Optimism’s Retro Funding S7 –Onchain Builders –Eval Algos. For future rounds, we could incorporate more community feedback on the previous result.

Note: We can adjust the weights in these algorithms. For example, in the first round, we might focus on growth, so the metrics with the highest weights would be TVL and Transactions counts. For each metric, we apply variant weights for Adoption, Growth, and Retention.

For illustration: Project A: Last month’s TVL = 100,000/this month’s TVL = 250,000 This means: Adoption = 250,000 Growth = 150,000 Retention = 100,000

Open Source Observer S7: Onchain Builders

To collect data for our evaluation metrics, we could create a working group to establish a public data infrastructure. I believed we have folks like like Open Source Observer (OSO) who have experiences in establishing and maintain a public data lake before. This approach will yield reliable on-chain analytics and project performance data, crucial for accurately assessing each project against its tailored metrics. Ultimately, this ensures all projects are evaluated fairly, transparently, and consistently based on the defined metrics and performance variants.

@eugene

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.

Further reflecting on lessons learned from Optimism, there are a some key takeaways regarding the use of evaluation algorithms

• To ensure these algorithms are truly effective, it is important to iteratively adjust them based on community feedback about what is most valuable in each round. Community input plays a crucial role in keeping the process aligned with evolving priorities.
• Ultimately, this approach should be viewed as an ongoing experiment. Perfection is not expected from the outset, and the process will require continual refinement and adaptation as circumstances and available resources change. Continuous development and flexibility are essential components of successful implementation.

@eugene

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.

We believe the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC) is the ideal structure for overseeing this initial round process. As the governance team works to establish the EGC, we recommend that it serve as the formal, transparent decision-making body for retroactive funding. This approach will ensure alignment with the evolving needs of the Scroll ecosystem.

[ModularCrypto]

We really appreciate this proposal and all the thoughtful work behind it — we think the idea of retroactive funding is super valuable and definitely something that could add a lot to the Scroll ecosystem in the long term.

That said, we’d love to share a few friendly reflections and questions based on where the Scroll’s Ecosystem and the DAO itself are right now:

Considering that the DAO treasury is still relatively limited, and that the Scroll ecosystem is still quite young and developing, we’re wondering if retroactive funding is the most effective tool at this specific stage. Sometimes, retro funding doesn’t directly incentivize new projects to emerge, since teams have to work first and only later, after a long process, might receive funding — if selected.

For new and smaller projects, this kind of uncertainty and delayed payment can be quite difficult — especially when they need immediate resources to get started. Given that, we’re wondering whether it might make sense to first establish a more proactive program, like Arbitrum’s Questbook, with defined reviewers, KPIs, and milestone-based funding. That way, teams can get clearer support upfront, while also creating a structured way to grow the ecosystem.

We’re also thinking about other approaches that might help Scroll’s growth at this stage — for example, earlier this year there were some ideas around liquidity incentives. That might also be an effective way to drive user adoption and engagement in the short- to mid-term.

So these are just some open questions and provocations about how we can use the DAO’s resources most efficiently right now, focusing on strategies that could deliver stronger growth and ecosystem development in the near future.

Just to be clear — we really like the idea of retroactive funding, and we think it should definitely be part of Scroll’s long-term strategy! We’re just not sure if it’s the perfect fit for where the DAO is at the moment.

Thanks again for sharing this — we’re excited to keep contributing to the discussion and seeing how this evolves!

[Curia]

We appreciate your thoughtful feedback @ModularCrypto To clarify, as we propose Retroactive Infrastructure Funding as one part of the overall funding mix for Scroll, it’s important to note that traditional grant funding will still continue alongside it, this is not a replacement but an addition. By offering both types of funding, we address the diverse needs of the ecosystem.

We fully understand your point about Scroll being in an emerging and developing phase with a relatively limited DAO treasury. That’s exactly why we believe retroactive funding can be especially valuable at this stage. It enables Scroll to recognize and reward contributions that have already proven their impact, ensuring that resources are directed toward initiatives that deliver real value to the ecosystem while also fostering stronger alignment around the project’s long-term success.

@kevinknielsen

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.

@kevinknielsen This is great point, We also believe that having a longer announcement period around a quarter before opening up retroactive funding rounds helps build awareness, gives projects time to prepare, and increases overall engagement.

Thank you again @ModularCrypto @kevinknielsen for your constructive comments.

[Web3Citizen]

At this stage we think its better to invest in growing the pie of projects building on Scroll, rather than jumping towards a retro funding program.

In theory we are for the idea of retroactive funding, but it can come with some trade offs around strict implementation vs rewarding non useful projects, or even attracting projects that have not generated enough impact yet.

We think a better approach for Scroll is to agree on verticals with potential to grow the ecosystem and fund projects that fit and can advance these goals.