CIP-63: Renewing the CoW Grants Program

[Chim9]

CIP-63: Renewing the CoW Grants Program

CIP: 63
title: Renewing the CoW Grants Program
author: @Chim9, @Kubesqrt, @middleway.eth, @notsoformal, @mfw78, @c3rnst, @Master_CoW
status: Active
created: 2025-01-21

Simple Summary

With the passing of this CIP, the mandate for Grants DAO continues for the period of 1st February 2025 through and including 31st January 2026.

For this period, the proposal requests an additional 383,000 xDAI from the Treasury held funds. With this additional funding, the available funds at the discretion of the Grant Committee to give out for funds in 2025 is 600,000 xDAI and 1,465,260 COW for Grant activities and 4,990,000 COW for volume grants.

The use of grants in the CoW ecosystem is a critical driver for fostering innovation and growth. Grants not only incentivize builders to develop on top of CoW but also encourage the creation of impactful products that align with the ecosystem’s goals. Since the inception of the Grants DAO, the initiative has successfully onboarded several impactful projects that have significantly advanced the CoW ecosystem, contributing positively to its expansion and overall utility.

Motivation

The CoW Grants Program has been instrumental in supporting innovation and growth for CoW Protocol. Over the past term, the program has successfully funded impactful projects and contributors. Since its inception, the Grants DAO has supported the development of many innovative features and tools for the CoW Protocol ecosystem, including:

• Safe Composable Conditional Orders: This feature significantly enhanced CoW Swap’s functionality by enabling developers and integrators to create custom orders with unique, on-chain enforceable conditions. It also facilitated the launch of the “Programmatic Orders” framework, broadening CoW Protocol’s application scope.

• CoW DeFi Hook Interface: Currently under development, this initiative aims to make CoW Protocol services based on hooks more accessible and user-friendly, improving the overall user experience for developers and integrators.

Highlights from the most recent cycle further demonstrate the program’s effectiveness:

• Core Contributors: The program funded key contributors like Hertzov for copywriting, MFW78 for software and engineering tasks, and a UX/UI design from L1ighthouse Services LLP. These contributors played a crucial role in advancing CoW Protocol’s usability and infrastructure.

• ZeroMEV Project: The program funded the open-sourcing and maintenance of ZeroMEV, a critical tool providing transparency in MEV data and supporting MEV mitigation research within the Ethereum ecosystem.

• CoW AMM Deployer: A Safe App was funded to enable seamless interaction with CoW AMM Module contracts, simplifying the setup and management process, thereby encouraging adoption and utilization.

• Governance Dashboard: A comprehensive governance analytics dashboard was developed using Dune, consolidating key metrics on proposals, voting, and delegation, enabling the community to make informed governance decisions.

• Redeploy CoW Subgraph: Funding was provided to upgrade and redeploy CoW Protocol’s subgraph infrastructure, adding support for Arbitrum One and Sepolia, ensuring robust and scalable infrastructure across networks.

Grant program financial position

Considering since the Grants program was created:

• Payouts Completed: So far, the Grants DAO has distributed a total of 919,853.03 xDAI and 2,602,740 COW, of which 1,010,000 COW was for the Volume program.
• Total Commitments: The Committee has committed 922,597.69 xDAI and 1,661,500 COW to various projects and initiatives. These commitments account for 51.26% of the xDAI budget, 53.60% of the COW budget, and 16.83% of the COW Volume allocation.
• Volume-Based Grants: Of the 6,000,000 COW allocated for volume-based grants, 16.83% has been committed. To date, multiple milestones have been met, and payouts have been made to eligible projects under this category.

The above allocations lead to a free funds allocation, from the prior CIP mandate of 198,803 xDAI, 1,1465,260 COW, and 4,990,000 COW allocated for Volume-Based Grants.

Given the above remaining allocation, which will continue to be available for Grant allocation via the Grants DAO committee, the Grants DAO committee requests under this CIP for the following additional funding:

1. An extra allocation of 383,000 xDAI (to initiate the year with a full budget of 600,000 xDAI;
2. The power to allocate part of the CoW Volume budget to non-volume CoW grants.

The xDAI funds should be sent by the Core Treasury team to the Grants DAO Safe (gno:0xDA00000B30dCf0C3f5d968e4451Ebdee6950d63e) in two instalments:

1. On passing of this CIP: 183,000 xDAI
2. By Jul 2025: 200,000 xDAI

Bonus Allocation for Grants

The Grants DAO Committee proposes the introduction of a discretionary bonus allocation for grants (to benefit of the grantee). This bonus will not be tied to milestones but will be awarded based on exceptional circumstances where the grantee has demonstrated outstanding performance, added significant value to the CoW Protocol ecosystem, or completed additional work beyond the scope of the original agreement. This bonus will be decided solely by the COW GrantsDAO.

Criteria for Grant Bonus Allocation:

1. The grantee has delivered extraordinary results or exceeded the original expectations outlined in the grant agreement. This could include:

• Significant technical advancements or innovations.
• Impactful contributions that improve the CoW Protocol ecosystem beyond the immediate project.
• Unforeseen challenges that were successfully overcome, with exceptional outcomes.

2. The grantee’s work has had a substantial positive impact on the broader CoW Protocol community or ecosystem. For example:

• Contributions to open-source development.
• Growth in ecosystem adoption or increased usage of CoW Protocol tools and services.

4. The grantee has demonstrated a high level of efficiency by completing the grant project ahead of schedule without compromising quality.
5. The team has provided additional resources, documentation, or features not initially requested but highly beneficial to the CoW Protocol community or ecosystem.

Discretionary Process:

• Maximum Bonus: The bonus amount per grant will be capped at 10,000 xDAI or equivalent in COW. It’s at the committee’s sole discretion (and seen as approved with the successful payout, without the need to go through Snapshot voting).
• Budget Allocation: A specific portion of the total Grants DAO budget will be allocated to bonuses. Once this portion is exhausted, no further bonuses will be granted unless the CoW Grants DAO votes to extend the bonus budget through an on-chain vote conducted via the CoW Grants DAO’s committee snapshot.

Continuation of Existing Grant Commitments

All grants that have been committed within the current mandate but extend beyond the end of the term (January 31, 2026) will remain valid and honored under this CIP. This ensures that grantees fulfilling their milestones in 2026 will still receive their allocated funding, regardless of whether the Grants DAO program is renewed beyond this term. Any such outstanding payments will continue to be administered by the Grants DAO Committee or, in the event of dissolution, transferred to CoW DAO for fulfillment.

CoW Grants Committee Structure and Operations

Committee Composition

The CoW Grants Committee comprises five members:

• 2 Core Team Members
• 3 Community Members

The committee operates as a Gnosis Safe with a 4/5 quorum required for approving grants. Each member is responsible for overseeing multiple grants and serving as a steward for assigned grants. They guide grantees through the entire process, from onboarding to grant completion.

Committee Members and Wallet Addresses

• Community Members:

  • @Kubesqrt - 0x177127622c4A00F3d409B75571e12cB3c8973d3c
  • @Chim9 - 0xF44217A8b6b3f258BFFEaD635c226528aa516aea
  • @mfw78 - 0x0F641723997145715d23c0129b96041011d26666

• Core Team Members:

  • @middleway.eth - 0xa11da8b2d9a7883eb636d7de426025e5fd9fda1a
  • @Master_CoW - 0x76ba9825a5f707f133124e4608f1f2dd1ef4006a

Governance and Safe Operations

Nested Safe Design

The CoW Grants DAO has historically used a nested safe design, enabling the DAO to retain full control of funds. However, this structure introduced operational inefficiencies in handling transactions.

Proposed Update

To streamline operations:

• Funds will be held directly in the Committee Safe.
• CoW DAO will act as the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of the Committee Safe.
  This update will improve efficiency, reduce transaction friction, and allow faster payment processing while maintaining DAO oversight.

---

Roles and Responsibilities

General Responsibilities (All Committee Members)

• Actively participating in governance, calls, and decision-making processes.

Defined Roles

1. Technical Lead
2. Grant Steward
3. Grant Moderator

Technical Lead

The Technical Lead ensures the technical integrity of grant operations. Responsibilities include:

• Conducting technical assessments of grant applications to ensure alignment with DAO goals and technical standards.
• Managing the cowdao-grants GitHub organization, including repository maintenance, access control, and issue tracking.
• Establishing technical standards and developing training resources for reviewing safe transactions effectively.
• Collaborating with the Grant Steward and Moderator during fortnightly coordination syncs.
• Supporting stewards in technical tasks, including reviewing milestones and offering technical guidance.

Grant Steward

The Grant Steward acts as the primary point of contact for assigned grantees and ensures grants are managed effectively. Responsibilities include:

• Liaising with grantees to clarify terms, expectations, and requirements post-approval.
• Monitoring and evaluating grant milestones and deliverables to ensure compliance with agreed terms, providing guidance to keep projects on track, and resolving challenges.
• Facilitating safe and timely execution of payments, including setting up monthly payouts on the Grants DAO Safe.
• Consolidating grantee updates and sharing insights with the Grants DAO and community via forum posts.
• Collaborating with other committee members to discuss project updates, evaluate the efficient use of the budget, and address any disputes or concerns raised by grantees, community members, or committee members.
• Coordinating with the designated Reviewer (internal or external) for technical milestone reviews and addressing major roadblocks.
• Updating Forum, Forum maintenance and keeping publicly available information up to date for the Grantees (that are not reliant on the docs).
• Grant tracker overview

Grant Moderator

The Grant Moderator ensures operational efficiency and smooth grant review processes. Responsibilities include:

• Screening grant applications to remove spam and irrelevant submissions.
• Ensuring timely review of applications by the appropriate stakeholders.
• Monitoring communication channels to maintain order and transparency.
• Attending quarterly standardization meetings to align on best practices and processes.
• Reviewing and validating monthly payouts on the Grants DAO Safe.

Coordination and Meeting Cadence

• Fortnightly Syncs: Technical Lead and Grant Stewards align on grant assessments, payments, and overall progress.
• Quarterly Meetings: Moderators attend standardization sessions to ensure operational consistency.
• Meetings will be scheduled within UTC-2 to UTC+4 to accommodate participants.

Compensation

Base Pay and Additional Rewards

Role	Base Pay (USD)	Payment in $COW Tokens	Additional Rewards
Technical Lead	$3,000	Equivalent value in $COW tokens	Eligible for performance-based bonuses (peer-reviewed).
Grant Steward	$2,000	Equivalent value in $COW tokens	Eligible for performance-based bonuses (peer-reviewed).
Grant Moderator	$1,000	Equivalent value in $COW tokens	Eligible for performance-based bonuses (peer-reviewed).

Notes on Remuneration

1. Base Pay: Fixed compensation for meeting core responsibilities.
2. Bonuses:
   • Members may submit a self-assessment of exceptional contributions.
   • Bonuses, capped at 1,500 xDAI per month, will be awarded quarterly after peer review.
   • External reviewers may also be paid from the bonus budget.

---

Adding or Removing Committee Members

Adding Members

To address technical gaps, the DAO has discretion to add up to two additional committee members through an on-chain vote. New members will be added to the multisig as signers.

Removing Members

Committee members may be removed via a snapshot vote if they fail to fulfill responsibilities, including attending calls, overseeing grants, or engaging in decision-making. A 4/5 quorum is required for such votes.

CoW DAO Termination

CoW DAO reserves the right to terminate and dissolve the Grants DAO with a 30-day notice period, following an on-chain vote conducted on the CoW DAO governance forum. In the event of such termination, all funds held by the CoW Grants DAO will be returned to the CoW DAO. Furthermore, the liability for any existing payouts to ongoing grantees will transfer to CoW DAO, which will assume responsibility for honoring these commitments.

Transparency and Accountability

For more information about grants, the following information are publicly available:

Grants Program Forum Section

Grant Status Tracker

Grants Program Snapshot Space

All votes are on Snapshot and serve as the ultimate source of information.

This CIP includes a suggestion for a revised Grant Template, available here separately on the Forum and part of this CIP and its governance process.

This CIP includes a suggestion for revised Grant Terms, available here separately on the Forum and part of this CIP and its governance process. If this CIP passes, future Grants are required to refer to these CoW DAO approved Terms.

CoW DAO will be the modular owner of all GrantsDAO Safes and obtains the right to withdraw funds as per above mentioned termination, and in case of extraordinary circumstances, with no notice.

Next to the possibility for the program to be terminated by CoW DAO, of course any renewal will include the success metrics of prior programs; if more funding is requested during the ongoing period, additional justification is provided.

Transaction Data

No transaction data is required.

[netrunner.eth]

Hi Team, please see my feedback regarding this Grants Program Renewal Proposal below.

Additional Grant Committee Member

I understand that @sohkai was also introduced as a Grant Committee Member in January 2024 to provide technical input. It would be great to see this reflected in the CIP so the record of committee membership remains accurate.

---

Committee Calls and Time Zone Constraints

“the Grants DAO Committee may remove the team member in accordance with their commitment to the program. Responsibilities include, attending committee calls…”

Seems a little rough. I appreciate the purpose of the ‘all-hands’ meetings, though time zone differences can be challenging. Since not all members are in the Northern Hemisphere, and attending calls in the middle of the night is impractical for some of us.

As a Mod on this Forum for the past 593 days, I am responsive to Applicants and Grantees. Using the Forums to communicate respects my anonymity and personal schedule.

I would suggest that Grant Committee calls be recorded (happy to have them expire after a few days) or meeting minutes provided, if the meeting needs to be called at all. Personally I prefer that Discord and this Forum serve as a primary communication channel for transparency to the CowDAO Community.

---

Stipend and Responsibilities

“An additional 150 xDAI plus $1,000 in COW is offered monthly…”
“each committee member is expected to oversee multiple projects and serve as a steward…”

While I like the idea of committee members stewarding multiple grants, I think it is an unreasonable expectation under the current compensation structure. If we truly need heavy involvement (e.g., multiple check-ins, milestone reviews, etc.), this time commitment will quickly exceed the modest stipend.

As someone who joined CowDAO for fun and the whimsical nature of Cowswap, I must highlight that my hourly rate would quickly deplete this budget if I were to dedicate serious time to extensive oversight. Which leads into my next point.

A discretionary bonus of monthly up to a maximum of 10,000 xDAI is proposed for committee members managing more responsibilities…

I suggest tripling the stipend for those who choose to serve in this “Grant Steward” capacity, rather than introducing a discretionary bonus. This helps avoid ambiguity, ensures fair and consistent compensation for those who take on this workload, and makes it clear from the outset who is dedicating significant time to grant oversight.

Personally, my current schedule does not allow for such time-intensive stewardship, so I am happy to remain a committee member with standard responsibilities, and I would recuse myself from any “Grant Steward” role that demands more bandwidth.

---

Dedicated Grant Resource from Nomev Labs Lda

I also note that Nomev Labs Lda has guided much of the Committee’s operations over the past year. It would make sense for them to provide a Dedicated Grant Resource—especially when so much of the Committee’s valuable time is spent reviewing technically complex proposals. This would relieve committee members from bearing the technical burden, while still letting us provide input on strategic and governance aspects of grants.

If there is a significant cost impost on the profit margins of Nomev Labs Lda, then I suggest they raise a separate grant proposal for this resource, which I am sure will be accepted. Treasury reports from @kpk show that it can be afforded very comfortably.

I have raised this before, in Contract Renewal Proposal CIP-58. Such an arrangement would reduce friction and ensure we have the right expertise at the right time.

I hope these suggestions can spark constructive dialogue about refining the grant program.

[c3rnst]

Heya - thanks for the thorough review!
Just a few comments, where I can add value:

• @sohkai had indicated that he doesn’t have the time to commit to this at the moment unfortunately. Happy for them to comment directly here
• Regarding the calls, I think the committee had discussed in Discord that the all-hands can be moved to some hours earlier if that would be suitable? If you want to be part, how many hours earlier would be a good time? There is an agenda and minutes of the all-hands, shared on Discord. I think some of the time consuming roles as a committee members are the roles of steward and reviewer of grants. Hoping that other committee members can add here. This question ties in with your next section as well and I think the proposed compensation should be commented by committee members, I’ll add my view:

• I generally agree with i) work should be rewarded and ii) depending on how much work someone does, this should be rewarded differently (so generally pro differentiating between “standard responsibilities” and “Grant Steward” and do see the need for both). So maybe that’s the way forward for this renewal? I think this was somewhat also intended by adding the possibility to have compensation for extra work (and reviewer work) done. I also see some difficulty in splitting the committee members into either of those two roles. So in my opinion, maybe it can be re-discussed how “strict” the rules have to be for the basic version.

• Regarding your comment regarding the Grant Resource, this was in detail answered by Kowrigan in your linked post: much is already taken on by Nomev Labs in their Service Agreement directly.

[mfw78]

Thanks @Chim9 and @Kubesqrt for putting this together. Drafting comprehensive documents like this is time consuming indeed.

In general, as a Committee member, I concur that that which is outlined in the top post is indicative of the processes that are currently being followed by the Grants Committee. These processes have been in a constant state of evolution since the Grants Committee was first instantiated under CIP-8 courtesy of @netrunner.eth.

Given the mandate from CoW DAO, and budget allocation, while it’s nice that we’ve been coming under budget (coming in at around ~50% for non-volume allocation), if we were to take on additional grants it’s grossly evident that the previous system prior to the introduction of Stewards and Reviewers (to formalise a process that was actually happening somewhat organically) would not be sufficient. In which case the Grants Committee would be unable to to fully execute its mandate. Even so, with the spend that has occurred, we have taken on marked increases in additional workload.

It has been my experience working in teams, and the Grants Commitee is certainly not without this effect, that workloads are not uniformly distributed. To @c3rnst’s point, I do see difficulty in drawing the line in responsibilities to differentiate. Moreso, I do see difficulty in bonus allocation as with this procedure (request for self-claim) - I would guess it’s more likely to be under-claimed by honest actors, and over-claimed by any malicious actors. IMO, it would be preferable to have some peer-review and allocate based on this.

Now onto the thorny issue of remuneration. The previous allocations have certainly benefited the Grants Committee given recent price action for COW - but this is down to good fortune and we can’t view work that’s being conducted presently based on the current dollar value, as opposed to that which was agreed when the previous CIP passed. This being said - I do think that given the formalised increase in responsibilities there should be an increase in base remuneration.

We currently engage in:

1. Regular contact and liaison with grantees.
2. Regular sync meetings (currently fortnightly).
3. Increased transaction load for review.
4. Increased complexity of grants.

I would suggest maintain the current bonus structure - but to be peer-reviewed and not self-nominated - and bump in line with @netrunner.eth 's suggestion, of 3x (so bump to USD$3K to be paid based on conversion rates at that time in COW / xDAI or some combination thereof - eliminating any conversion risk exposure for both CoW DAO and Grant Committee members) for the execution of mandatory duties (stewardship, reviewing, grant payments processing etc).

As the above was written in prose somewhat, for the sake of clarity, I do not support committee members operating in a context less than that which is indicated in the top post by @Chim9 (allowances made for force majeure / general life).

mfw78.

[Tane]

Based on comments from @mfw78 and @netrunner, the current proposal appears to be insufficient. Specifically, an increase in compensation, clearer role delineation, and adding new members appear necessary.

1. The grant committee is facing challenges.
   While having a single individual cover multiple tasks is ideal, as @netrunner and @mfw78 point out, that is not always feasible.
   Two key challenges currently exist:
   (1) compensation that does not match the actual workload
   (2) insufficient capacity to handle all stewardship activities.

2. The proposed design isn’t enough to overcome the challenges.
   Although a bonus system may provide a partial fix, unclear responsibilities and workload expectations for each role could create uncertainty for committee members and may ultimately fail to guarantee the committee’s necessary capacity.

3. There are three Potential Approaches.
   Considering these points, there are three main approaches to address these issues.

• Increasing compensation
• Dividing responsibilities more explicitly (for example, establishing separate Reviewer and Steward roles within the Grant Committee)
• Adding members

Drawing on other DAOs’ experiences, if the Grant Committee aims to broaden its scope and tackle additional responsibilities, it will likely benefit from functional specialization. Expanding the team also appears to be a natural course of action.

[netrunner.eth]

Notice: Stepping Down from the Grants Committee

Hi Team,

I had a great chat with @mfw78, and really appreciate everyone’s flexibility around my schedule. After some thought, I’ve realized I can’t give the Grants Program the attention it truly deserves. My personal commitments and focus have shifted, and I want to make sure the committee has fully dedicated members who can keep things moving forward.

So, I’ve decided to step away from the Grants Committee, following in the footsteps of @sohkai and @fairlight. This means the remaining members—@Chim9, @Kubesqrt, @mfw78, and @middleway.eth—will get to welcome some new individuals who can bring fresh energy and perspective to the program.

It’s been an honor watching the Grants Program evolve from its beginnings under CIP-8 into a thriving initiative that supports a growing number of projects and contributors. I’m incredibly proud of how far we’ve come, and of everyone’s passion and hard work.

I’m stepping away on good terms and look forward to cheering on your continued successes.

[Chim9]

Thank you @netrunner.eth for sharing your thoughts and for being so open about your decision to step down from the Grants Committee. While it’s sad to see you go, I fully respect your choice to prioritize your personal commitments and focus on what’s most important to you right now. I would like to thank you for your key work over the years from the very beginning where you were shaping the Grants program with CIP-8 to its current scale, you have played a key role in supporting countless projects and contributors within the CoW ecosystem.

Thank you @c3rnst and @mfw78 for already addressing most of the questions raised in the earlier replies, I agree with your answers and proposals, the flexibility around committee roles, the added differentiation between responsibilities like stewardship and standard duties, and the fair compensation framework all seem like a step in the right direction to ensure we continue attracting and supporting dedicated contributors. I agree with what has been proposed and will edit the CIP-draft accordingly.

[Sov]

gm!!

I’m always excited to see conversations like this and appreciate everyone’s input.

One piece of feedback I’d offer is to explore alternative funding methods—particularly Futarchy, which leverages prediction markets to decide which proposals are likely to deliver the best outcomes, and direct contract incentives, which automatically reward projects upon hitting usage or liquidity milestones. Both approaches can align funding with demonstrable results in a trust-minimized way and tap into the unique strengths of on-chain, crypto-native mechanisms.

I lead Grants at Gitcoin and would welcome the opportunity to contribute in whatever way might be useful. If it could add value, I’d be happy to share insights or collaborate on exploring these design spaces or any other funding strategies I’ve seen work well in other ecosystems. I’ve been a grants nerd for years now and love digging into these topics!

Thanks so much for your time and consideration—looking forward to seeing how things develop!

[c3rnst]

Hey - that’s super interesting!
Wondering if this could be shaped like a Grant with something more specific?

[Sov]

A dedicated grant could be structured to fund specific outcome-based initiatives, where funds are allocated directly to service providers who commit to achieving measurable results.

LMK if this makes sense!

[c3rnst]

I would suggest to add to the Steward role:

• Updating Forum, Forum maintenance and keeping publicly available information up to date for the Grantees (that are not reliant on the docs).
• Grant tracker overview

[Chim9]

Thank you for the suggestion @c3rnst , I agree with the proposed additions and have updated the proposal accordingly.

[MasterMojo]

Nice to see Sov and Tane in here! Both valuable assets to a Grants team.

Here is a link where Optimism Governance brings up Futarchy if you want to read more @c3rnst

Lavande 🔴✨

I am also interested in a Grant Steward role if one is available (Been on Optimism Grants council past two Seasons, and on the current one as a GrantsNerd, I have past grants council roles with Kwenta and Lyra, on Current Infinex Council, and was a Synthetix Ambassador for 3 years).

[sohkai]

Thanks @c3rnst for bringing this up (+ @netrunner.eth). I can attest that I will be stepping down from the grants council to welcome a new member in my spot.

Similar to the other two (fairlight and netrunner), unfortunately other priorities have forced me to be less engaged than I would’ve desired as a member of the grants council. This is partly due to its full cycle nature of finding, guiding, reviewing, and ultimately evaluating the outputs of grantees.

I continue to believe the program to be a great way for COW DAO to bring on talent and innovations at the edges. This has been demonstrated over the last two years since the inception of the program given the impressive set of contributors and projects built. I’m excited for what the next years will bring :).

[Chim9]

Hey @Mastermojo, thanks for applying! We really appreciate your interest. Given the short notice, we won’t be including you in this CIP, as we want to ensure there’s enough time for a proper review. That said, the Grant Committee will have the ability to add two new members through a grant even after the CIP passes, so there will still be an opportunity to join soon. We’d love for you to apply through the planned process, looking forward to it!

[Sov]

Thanks for the update here @Chim9

I might have missed this somewhere but would you be able to share the details on the planned process for applications or is that forthcoming?

[Chim9]

@Sov We haven’t yet finalized the detailed process for adding new members to the committee, but we plan to do so soon. In the meantime, you can expect us to assess whether you’d be a good fit for the committee, have a discussion with you before the committee proceeds with a vote.

[Sov]

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification. To help make an informed decision I’ll share my relevant experience and qualifications.

• Current Head of Grants at Gitcoin, leading programs allocating a high volume of grants annually across multiple ecosystems
• Former Lead of the Gitcoin Grants Program (GG18 - GG20)
• Current ENS Public Goods Steward
• Served as a Mission Reviewer on the Optimism Grants Council in Season 6, completing over 3,600 rubric evaluations with a 100% completion rate
• Active delegate for multiple DAOs bringing valuable cross-ecosystem perspectives
• Former Board President of an innovative 501c3 Food Bank, where I successfully managed stakeholder relationships, grants, and organizational governance
• Created and maintained multiple resources for the Web3 grants ecosystem including LlamaoGrants, Blockworks Grantfarm, and Crypto Grant Wire.
• Unique perspective as both a grantmaker and successful grantee from major protocols including Polygon, Aave, and the Ethereum Foundation

Thank you for your consideration. I’m happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions about my experience.

[Chim9]

Moved to Snapshot : https://snapshot.box/#/s:cow.eth/proposal/0x93b57204df8a33567da01a935686121d69d1443ef2189da45cfb011efc17fcae

[Tane]

We’d also love to be considered as a candidate for the upcoming new member onboarding for the Grants Committee.
Although we are aware that the official application process is to be prepared, let us share our key information so that anyone can see it.

• Experience on the Optimism Grants Council
  • Served on the Grants-related Council of the Optimism Collective in Season 6 and 7.
  • Participated in the review, evaluation, and distribution of grants.
  • Familiar with effective workflow design for grant approvals, stakeholder engagement, and on-chain administration.
  • In Season 7, we are placing greater emphasis on supporting the delivery of projects that have received grants, which is very similar to what is discussed as Steward in this thread.
• Active Participation in Multiple DAOs
  • Involved in governance activities across Optimism, Arbitrum, Lido, ENS, Morpho, and more.
  • Leverages cross-ecosystem insights to ensure CoW Grants Committee benefits from diverse best practices in DeFi and governance.
• Broad Project Assessment & Support
  • Evaluated a wide range of applications (infrastructure, DeFi, middleware) for both technical feasibility and community impact.
  • Provided ongoing guidance and resource support for grant recipients, focusing on both short-term deliverables and long-term ecosystem growth.
  • We can also leverage the insights we gained through our venture investment activities in evaluating projects.
• Hands-On Technical and Product Building Background
  • Team members include former senior engineers at Twitter and product managers at unicorn startups with tens of millions of MAU.
  • Quite familiar with MEV as we have been running nodes of different chains and invested in MEV-related projects.
  • Skilled at assessing project feasibility, reviewing technical roadmaps, and spotting integration or security issues early.

You can also find some other key information here.

Tané: Introduction as Delegate

[tane] Name / Alias: Tané Wallet Address: tanegov.eth / 0xB79294D00848a3A4C00c22D9367F19B4280689D7 Snapshot profile: Tané’s Snapshot profile Channels: Twitter: x.com Website: https://tanelabs.com Discord: tksohishi Telegram: takeshi55555 Short Pitch (TL;DR): Tané is formed with a group of crypto-native product builders, based in Tokyo, Dubai and New York. We are backed by SoftBank, and Japanese tech giants like DeNA, GREE, MIXI. Our investment arm has invested in and supported various …

We believe we are ready to help optimize CoW Grants processes and metrics for transparency, efficiency, and measurable impact.