Grants Program v2: Discussing Concerns and Future Improvements

As we anticipate the release of the Grants Program v2 later this year, we would like to create a space for community members to discuss their concerns about the current grants program and share their ideas for improvements and updates they’d like to see moving forward. This thread aims to provide an open and inclusive platform for constructive dialogue to help shape the future of the grants program.

In this thread, we encourage you to discuss various aspects related to the current grants program and potential improvements, including but not limited to:

  1. General concerns: Share any concerns or issues you have experienced or observed with the current grants program.
  2. Eligibility and application process: Discuss any suggestions for changes or additions to the application process and eligibility requirements.
  3. Funding allocation and transparency: Share your thoughts on the current funding distribution and any ideas to improve transparency and fairness in this area.
  4. Grant categories and focus areas: What new categories or focus areas do you think should be added or adjusted to better support the diverse needs and interests of the platform?
  5. Evaluation and feedback process: Discuss potential improvements to the evaluation process of grant proposals and any mechanisms that could be put in place to provide constructive feedback to grant recipients.

Thanks @foxlabs create the topic.

To be fair point of view, first I disclose the relationship between me and dYdX.
I am one of the Endorsed Delegate and belong to dYdX Japan Community.
I submited 2 grants and both failed that categorized marketing and international growth.

1.General concerns
The respond at the first grants application was slightly problem.
When did saw reply, I thought that allowed to be recieved the grants if cleared test KPI.
In actually, My application was failed already and I know it facts via japanese community member.
In order to achived the KPI, unfortunitely, waste of time about 1 month.

On the other hand, The respond at the second application was superior.
Very quick response, clear answer, and the reason.
I understand smoothly my suggestion is rejected.

From like experience, The first reply about the decision whether allow or reject, and pending should be pattern, and effect must explained clearly.
Like the goverment.

I think It would help communicate to speaker english non-native.


We have been closely monitoring recent discussions on Discord and have gone through the grant processes ourselves, experiencing both approval and disapproval. We wish to offer constructive feedback that could address community concerns and contribute to a more effective and equitable grants programme moving forward. Here are our suggestions for the Grants Program Version 2:


We propose making all applications publicly available on the grants website, including submission dates, times, and clear explanations for each application’s approval or rejection. This increased transparency would allow the community to track application progress and assess whether decisions align with the platform’s and the community’s best interests.


Efficient communication is a key concern for the community. Slow response rates have been observed, occasionally taking a week or two. Given Reverie’s compensation, applicants should receive replies within 24 hours for grant-related queries through email, Discord, and the forum. Transparent communication regarding current applications should be maintained on the grants website or the new Discourse forum to ensure Reverie meets these standards.

Community Proposal Voting:

We suggest implementing a voting mechanism that enables the community to weigh in on each application, thereby incorporating their opinions on a project’s potential benefits for the platform. This process could balance the decision-making power between Reverie and the community.

Compensation and Funding:

We recommend disclosing the requested funding amount for each application on the grants website. This information would allow the community to evaluate the proposal’s merit, potentially influencing their votes on approval if such a voting mechanism were implemented. Additionally, community members should be able to suggest alternative funding amounts if they deem the initial request too high or low.


A more structured payment schedule for recipients is recommended. Grant recipients should receive the agreed-upon amounts and be notified when payments are made. All grantees should be compensated as per their agreements.

Evaluation and Feedback:

We propose adding a section to the grants website where community members can rate projects on a scale of 1 to 10 based on quality, usefulness, and value. This rating system would enable the community to rank all funded projects and identify the most valuable ones. Incorporating this additional layer of evaluation promotes greater transparency and informed decision-making. Highly ranked projects could also be considered for bonus payments, incentivising grantees to deliver high-quality work.


Josh from dYdX Foundation here. A lot of discussion on this topic right now. Appreciate the framing, tone, and focus on potential actionable steps here.



Great suggestions Kagan.

I’d also make reference to some action points made by (now) a previous core contributor MoMo re. the Grants Program. These suggestions were already made in the v1.5 thread but were disregarded by Reverie.

Here’s to hoping that they do not do the same this time.

Thanks for posting the thread!

It’s hard to discuss anything if Reverie again will manipulate the vote. 55M tokens are hard to beat

I had the opportunity to explore the grants dashboard yesterday, and I wanted to share some constructive feedback to help improve the user experience. I appreciate the efforts to create the dashboard and believe a few adjustments could make it even better.

Scrolling visibility: I initially didn’t realise that there was more content lower down on the dashboard, as it was contained within a scroll box. To improve visibility and prevent important information from being hidden, I would recommend removing the scroll box and displaying the content directly on the page itself.

Applications table: It would be best to also include the requested fund amount in the applications table.

Pagination: Adding pagination to the “Grants Approved” and “Applications” sections would allow users to navigate more than just the 12 most recent applications.

Disapproved grants section: Including a “Grants Disapproved” section with reasons for disapproval could provide valuable information for users seeking to understand the decision-making process.

I would be more than happy to collaborate with you on enhancing the UX design of the dashboard should you need any assistance.

On a separate note, I noticed a sizeable purple border surrounding the page. While it may have been added for mobile reasons, it appears somewhat out of place. Removing or modifying the border could enhance the overall UI design.


I concur with your proposed additions, Kagan.
Additionally, I would appreciate access to the funding round schedule. This is because, in the applications dashboard, we can only view applications sorted by date, while in the funded grants section, we can only see grants funded by round
I don’t fully understand the concept of "rounds. Why not simply have a category for “grants approved in April” instead