Token Resurrection

Opensource

0. no 1. some parts 2. yes

Demo included

0. No demo included 1. poor demo included 2. High-quality demo included

Tangible Use Case

0. This project is highly abstract or not useful for the adoption 1. This project may have some tangible use case 2. This project has a reasonable probability of creating a tangible use case 3. This project presents a clear and useful use case for the adoption that may already exist 4. This project presents a clear, unique and useful use case for the adoption

Intuitivity, ease of use and accessibility

0. The project lacks simplistic and or intuitive design 1. The Project is slightly intuitive and or simplistic, but improvements are needed 2. The Project demonstrates a fair degree of simplicity and intuitiveness 3. The Project is notably simplistic and intuitive 4. The Project excels in simplicity and intuitiveness and will be easy to onboard users

Technical implementation

0. The project design is too complex and hard to realize 1. The project design is somewhat complex and realization is not impossible 2. Limited or ineffective use of smart contracts 3. Moderately effective use of smart contracts, with some areas for improvement 4. Demonstrates a sophisticated use of smart contract, providing comprehensive insights

Novelty

0. There is little to distinguish this project from other projects that exist on Optimism already 1. This is one of a small number of examples of a project being built on Optimism that are otherwise common throughout Web3 2. This project is distinguishable from other projects in Web3 on the margins (e.g., a different way of doing something that may be done in other contexts already) 3. This project is distinguishable from other projects in Web3: very few other projects are doing something similar and this is not merely a different way of performing an existing operation 4. This project is at the vanguard of development and is meaningfully different from other projects in Web3.

Code Audit (intention to audit in the future is considered)

0. No code audit 1. Some code audit but not by a well-known auditor 2. Some code audit by reputable auditor 3. Code fully audited but not by a well-known auditor 4Code fully audited by reputable auditor

Superchain composability potential

0. Project can't be extended to the Superchain ecosystem 1. Project has multiple challenges to be extended to the Superchain ecosystem 2. Project has the potential to be extended to the Superchain ecosystem

Project stickiness

0. Clear flaw in design that cannot be easily remedied 1. Difficult to see the project continuing for more than a year 2. Reasonable chance that the project has intermediate-to-long-term success (+1 Year) 3. Project is likely to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem 4.Project has substantial likelihood to generate long-term, sustainable value for the Optimism ecosystem

Mission Alignment

0. No clear strategy for achieving the goals of the mission request 1. Some mission request strategy alignment with notable weaknesses and low impact 2. Moderate mission request alignment strategy with reasonable chances of success 3. Strong and well-defined mission request alignment strategy, is likely to succeed in a meaningful way 4. Project is a significant driver of the mission request, significant impact, and sets a standard for others to follow

Developer Draw

0. Project unlikely to draw more developers to Optimism 1. Project likely to draw more developers to Optimism 2. Project likely to draw many developers to Optimism 3. Project likely to draw many developers to Optimism who focus on building novel products 4. Project likely to draw a large number of developers who focus on building novel products

User / Developer Retention

0. Likely to attract users / devs who will not remain in the ecosystem 1. Likely to reach users / devs who derive utility from engaging with the Optimism network 2. Likely to reach users / devs who have a sustained need to use OP 3. Likely to reach users / devs who have a significant need to use OP and who offer significant value to the OP ecosystem 4. Likely to reach power users / devs, key Web3 ecosystems, and core developers who have a need to use OP

Distribution implementation plan

0. Proposed plan has little likelihood of reaching intended recipients 1. Proposed plan is unlikely to reach the breadth of recipients intended 2. Proposed plan is reasonably tailored to reach breadth of recipients intended 3. Proposed plan creates a likelihood that grant will reach breadth of recipients intended 4. Proposed plan is well-designed to reach breadth of recipients intended

Grant size

0. Grant size significantly outweighs the projected benefit 1. Grant size is considerably larger than the expected benefit 2. Grant size is proportional to the expected benefit 3. Expected benefit outweighs grant size 4. Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size

Team Commitment

0. No commitment attraction 1. Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end) 2. Commitment attraction (1 to 3 months after rewards end ) 3. Commitment attraction (1 year after rewards end) 4. Commitment attraction (2+ years after rewards end)

Team assessment

0. Team does not substantiate ability to deliver on plan 1. Team does not show significant ability to deliver on plan 2. Team shows reasonable ability to deliver on plan 3. Team has substantial relevant experience and shows significant ability to deliver on plan 4. Team's track record exceeds what is required to deliver on plan

Milestone Trackability

0. Not trackable 1. Somewhat trackable 2. Easily trackable

Milestones Accountability

0. Not clear or not articulated roadmap 1. Reasonable but plausible roadmap 2. Well-defined and highly achievable roadmap

Measurable Impact

0. No measurable impacts 1. Milestones have some measurable impact or metric 2. Clear metrics and indicators to measure the success of the Project

Discretionary factor 1

Reviewers will have a fidiscretionary score to apply to the overall rubric of (-2 to 4). Comment is mandatory if they make use of it.

Discretionary factor 2

Reviewers will have a second discretionary score to apply to the overall rubric of (-2 to 4). Comment is mandatory if they make use of it.

Discretionary factor 3

Reviewers will have a third discretionary score to apply to the overall rubric of (-2 to 4). Comment is mandatory if they make use of it.