CIP-82: CoW DAO Grants 2026 Renewal - CI/CD

Governance
, ,
1

COW Grants 2026 Renewal: CI/CD

Overview

The 2026 CoW DAO Grants Program renewal builds on the foundation established in CIP-63 while refining focus toward strategic growth. Rather than repeating governance documentation from the previous proposal, this renewal demonstrates how the program has evolved from establishing processes to executing on priorities.

Previous Renewal Reference: CIP-63: Renewing the CoW Grants Program

Budget Evolution

CIP-63 allocated 600,000 xDAI and 1,465,260 COW for general grants, along with 4,990,000 COW reserved for volume incentives. For 2026, we are grounding our budget request in the actual Q4 2025 deployment rate rather than projected growth, allowing any unused 2025 funds to roll forward transparently.

As of today, the Grants Safe holds 271,319 xDAI and 6,680,618 COW. Confirmed commitments for the period Nov 2025–Jan 2026 amount to approximately 50,464 xDAI and 130,304 COW, reflecting the variability introduced by EUR-denominated grants and the COW-denominated committee stipend. After accounting for these, the Grants DAO expects to retain approximately 220,855 xDAI and 6,550,314 COW, with 4,990,000 COW specifically reserved for the volume incentive program, which continues to be deployed only when partner activity demonstrates clear value multiplication.

To improve capital efficiency and reduce idle treasury exposure, we are introducing quarterly fund releases rather than a single annual transfer. This mechanism, developed in collaboration with the Core team and the Treasury Committee, would provide the Grants DAO with 25% of the annual allocation each quarter, while also enabling us to decline funds if not needed. This shift allows us to return up to 75% of currently idle assets to the CoW Treasury, while maintaining flexibility for timely grant approvals.

Current Funds & Commitments with Budget Request

Category xDAI COW
Current Safe Balance 271,319 6,680,618
Committed (Nov 2025–Jan 2026) 50,464 130,304
Estimated Remaining 220,855 6,550,314
Reserved for Volume Incentives — 4,990,000
2026 Budget Request 500,000 6,550,314
Additional Funding Required ~279,145 —

Based on these figures, we are requesting a total 2026 budget of 500,000 xDAI and the residual COW balance remaining in the safe (approximately 6,550,314 COW, of which 4,990,000 remains reserved for volume incentives). Given the estimated 220,855 xDAI currently available, this represents a shortfall of approximately 279,145 xDAI to be transferred from the CoW Treasury. Consistent with the quarterly release mechanism described above, this additional funding will be drawn down on an as-needed basis quarter by quarter, ensuring capital efficiency while maintaining operational flexibility.

As part of this renewal, the Grants Treasury Safe will be migrated from Gnosis Chain to Ethereum mainnet. This simplifies accounting and reduces bridging requirements when receiving top-ups from the CoW DAO Treasury.

Strategic Focus Refinement

Through increased collaboration with the core team in 2025, we’ve identified areas where grants can extend CoW Protocol’s reach and address critical ecosystem needs. Weekly syncs with core team members have revealed specific opportunities that the grants program is uniquely positioned to address.

A key challenge we face is the technical complexity of CoW Protocol. Unlike simple AMM integrations, building on CoW requires understanding batch auctions, solver networks, and intent-based trading. This complexity creates a high barrier to entry for developers. We’re addressing this through targeted investments in documentation, tooling, and hands-on support programs that lower the technical barrier without compromising protocol sophistication.

The 2026 strategy focuses on four areas that emerged from core team collaboration and ecosystem observation:

  • Developer Onboarding and Enablement - Creating pathways for developers to understand and build on CoW through improved documentation, SDKs, and direct support. This includes Order Decoder tools and Playground infrastructure.
  • Strategic Ecosystem Alignment - Partnering with other protocols and platforms where CoW can provide unique value, particularly around MEV protection and batch auction benefits.
  • Novel Applications on CoW - Supporting use cases that showcase CoW’s unique capabilities beyond basic swaps, including programmatic orders, CoW AMM implementations, and cross-chain solutions.

This focus came from recognizing that grants work best when addressing specific pain points while also exploring new frontiers. We balance solving immediate core team needs with investing in experimental projects that could unlock new use cases for the protocol.

Operational Maturity

The 2026 proposal reflects operational improvements achieved since CIP-63. Weekly core team meetings replaced sporadic communication. Automated tracking eliminated most manual work, with grant activity visible through our Notion hub.

Current Operations & Pipeline: CoW Grants Hub
Weekly Updates Archive: CoW Grants Weekly Updates

Grantee experience has become a key focus area. We’re balancing rapid turnaround with thorough evaluation processes. While simple grants move quickly, complex technical proposals require a more thorough review to ensure quality and feasibility. This balance means some grant processes in days while others take weeks, but applicants receive regular communication throughout the process rather than waiting in uncertainty.

Additionally, we’re implementing a standardized grantee feedback form to be sent upon grant completion, allowing us to continuously improve our processes based on direct user experience. This feedback will be reviewed quarterly and incorporated into operational improvements

CIP-63 explained how we would establish processes; the 2026 proposal references these as functional. All governance mechanisms from CIP-63 carry forward, including grant termination procedures and safe protocols.

Key Reference Documents:

Measuring Success Differently

CIP-63 focused on activity metrics like grants processed and funds deployed. The 2026 proposal targets outcome-based evaluation while acknowledging the qualitative dimensions of ecosystem development. We’re moving toward measuring impact through volume growth, developer adoption, and infrastructure improvements, while recognizing that research initiatives and community building create value that doesn’t immediately translate to numbers.

Some contributions began as experimental grants with no clear projections. The TWAP infrastructure now used by the Ethereum Foundation for their ETH conversions shows how patient infrastructure investment yields returns.

Historical Context:

Committee Details

The committee brings complementary expertise that enables sophisticated grant evaluation and ecosystem development.

  • Mfw78 (Technical Lead) provides deep technical knowledge of CoW Protocol’s architecture, having developed infrastructure and governance systems. His understanding of solver networks and protocol mechanics ensures technical proposals receive proper evaluation.
  • Chim (Grant Steward) brings operational excellence and financial management expertise, maintaining grant accounting and ensuring smooth payment operations.
  • Sov (Grant Steward) brings years of experience operating grant programs with tens of millions in allocations, along with relationships across major ecosystems.
  • middleway.eth (Core Team) provides strategic alignment and grant stewardship from the core team perspective
  • Master_CoW (Core Team) ensures grants align with protocol development priorities

The collaboration between grants and the core team has been strengthened through finance and admin guidance in building bridges between committees. Core team members have provided strategic input on priority areas and helped identify where grants can have maximum impact. This partnership ensures grants align with protocol development rather than operating in isolation.

Committee Operations (links):

  • Multisig Safe

  • Snapshot Space: cowgrants.eth

  • COW Grants Hub

  • Committee Safe Signers**:**

    • mfw78:
      • Snapshot / Safe account: 0x0F641723997145715d23c0129b96041011d26666
      • Stipend Recipient Address: 0xc0de401Dfb531Ec15A453C3301E5807Cf2C8323e

  • Chim9: 0xF44217A8b6b3f258BFFEaD635c226528aa516aea

  • Sov: 0x2D7d6Ec6198ADFD5850D00BD601958F6E316b05E

  • Middleway: 0xA11DA8B2D9A7883eb636d7de426025e5fD9fda1A

  • Master Cow: 0x76bA9825A5F707F133124E4608F1F2Dd1EF4006a

Committee Compensation:

  • Technical Lead: $3,000/month in COW
  • Grant Steward: $2,000/month in COW
  • Core Team Members: No additional compensation

Performance Bonus Structure: The committee maintains a potential quarterly performance bonus pool of up to 1,500 xDAI per member per month, awarded based on peer review of exceptional contributions. This structure carries forward from CIP-63.

Partnerships Incentives: To incentivize securing external funding, we propose that committee members who successfully secure grants from other ecosystems receive a 5% success fee on the funding secured, capped at 10,000 xDAI per grant. Said incentive would be paid on a cash-on-cash basis, as external funding is received by the DAO’s Treasury and paid directly from those funds and the wallet. This aligns incentives for multiplying the DAO’s investment through external partnerships

Historical Program Evolution

For context on the program’s development:

Conclusion

The 2026 renewal represents evolution rather than revolution. We maintain governance safeguards outlined in CIP-63 while focusing on priorities that support protocol growth. The budget methodology adapts to deployment rates, with quarterly releases that improve efficiency while maintaining flexibility.

This proposal continues the trajectory from 2025, where grant deployment drives protocol growth through developer adoption, volume partnerships, and ecosystem development. The program has proven value through deliverables and impact. With support, 2026 will demonstrate how investment in ecosystem development creates competitive advantages for CoW Protocol.

For questions or discussion: Post in the CoW Grants Forum or reach out to committee members on CoW Discord.

5 Likes
2

Thanks @mfw78 for putting the renewal proposal together.
A lot of progress is being made and I believe this will result in even a higher impact of the grants program going forward.

It’s no surprise given my involvement - I’m in favor of this proposal!
Looking forward to seeing more comments and engagement on this draft CIP, as soon we’ll need to move it forward to the voting phase.

3

Cool stuff! Seeing mfw sitting idle is a big resource waste, lets progress to the vote kek

4

Showing support to the initiative and keeping the Grants program and committee operating.
As previously shared with the committee, CoW’s Grant program needs to further fund new initiatives so that the cost structure of the administration of the program reduces in % of the total grants program.

I think the current shift of the commitee towards weekly updates, pushing RFPs to the community and searching for new funding and partnerships is a series of steps in the right direction. Would love to see more “outbound” reach done so that we reach new grantees and have more people build on CoW’s stack.

Would personally like to congratulate the 5 committee members for keeping to push this initiative forward, engage in Discord with community and being CoW stewards for new elements to the herd.

2 Likes
5

Update: Budget & Treasury Clarifications

A couple of edits to the proposal:

Budget: Requesting 500,000 xDAI (down from CIP-63’s 600K) plus the residual COW balance (~6.55M, with ~5M reserved for volume incentives). With ~221K xDAI currently in the safe, this means ~279K additional from Treasury, drawn quarterly as needed.

Treasury Migration: The Grants Safe will move from Gnosis Chain to Ethereum mainnet to simplify accounting and reduce bridging overhead.

Any additional questions welcome.

2 Likes
6

This has been moved to snapshot here.

1 Like
7

I voted AGAINST

It’s difficult for me to evaluate the quality of the grant work being carried out, but I’ve seen the inception of grants, their poor results, and their rethinking in Arbitrum. Based on this experience, I see what could be improved:

  • Conduct elections for the decision-making committee (the same people have been in place for several years). I’m a proponent of decentralization and competition, and it’s crucial who chooses who gets grants.

  • Introduce more specific KPIs (we need to understand what results to expect, not just spend DAO funds). In almost every vote, I say that it would be much easier to make decisions if there were global goals and plans; then we could understand where to go with grants.

  • Provide specific results for previous grants (have there been any successes?). I believe that reporting and transparency are essential for decision-making; it was precisely this kind of transparency that made it possible to understand the error of spending tens of millions of dollars on grants in Arbitrum.

1 Like
Cp0x: Introduction as Delegate
8

Hi @cp0x, and thanks for your vote, including your explanation of such. To address your concerns point by point:

While many (including myself) have been in place for some time, it’s important to note that there have been significant structural changes, especially in the last year. Notably, now, with the structure whereby there are 3 community committee members, and 2 core team members on the Grants Committee, the thresholds for passing grants and allocating funds are now at 3 / 5. This has effectively removed the veto that the core team held over the allocation of grant funding and has arguably led to significantly stronger separation / distancing from the Core Team.

During this year, we ran with trying to introduce greater specific KPIs with respect to grants and it has been demonstrated that this is simply not efficacious or representative of value delivered. For example, a grant that significantly reduces technical debt associated with SDKs, and therefore smooths new developer onboarding, in and of itself does not have any notably definable KPI, such as volume, new user acquisition etc (not to mention tracking of such is inherently flawed). Therefore, I would challenge that instead of KPIs (quantitative, metric driven), this should instead actually be OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), which reflects the underlying more qualitative approach required when evaluating grants.

Off the top of my head, ComposableCoW, which became the programmatic order framework, and cost ~$30K has yielded over USD$2.1B in volume to date. The defillama integration as well was funded through the volume program at the grants, and not to mention that the primary method that AAVE was using to trade on CoW Protocol (the Milkman bot) - which stewarded 8 figure trades - was also funded through the grants.

We respect the feedback, and have been taking increased measures to provide transparency in communication, which has led to quarterly reporting (1H, and Q3).

mfw.

5 Likes
9

Unfortunately the vote didn’t meet quorum.
I hope we can gather more feedback and resubmit for another vote in the new year when there’s more attention and ability to vote.

1 Like
11

Hello everyone,

The Grants DAO renewal proposal has been reposted on Snapshot under CIP-82 for a new voting round. The initial vote didn’t reach quorum, likely due to the timing just before the holidays, which affected participation. There were no significant objections or suggested modifications, so we’re moving forward with a new voting round.

You can now vote on CIP-82 here: https://snapshot.box/#/s:cow.eth/proposal/0xe84793f122f1c9faa2bb9194faf71567ffd236df616bd60c300eead541f25304

Thank you, we look forward to your feedback!