S7: Onchain Builders

important

Retro Funding is shifting to an algorithm-driven evaluation process, ensuring funding decisions are transparent, scalable, and based on measurable impact. Instead of voting on projects directly, citizens will vote on impact-measuring algorithms. Each algorithm has a different strategy for allocating rewards. These models will evolve based on community feedback and proposals. You can view the source code and contribute your own models here.

This document explains the initial evaluation methodology developed for the Retro Funding S7: Onchain Builders Mission, including:

• Key metrics used to assess project impact
• Evaluation pipeline that transforms and aggregates metrics
• Three initial algorithms for assigning weights and emphasizing current vs. previous period metrics

Algorithm	Goal	Best For	Emphasis
Superscale	Reward clear-cut leaders	Large, established projects with high usage	Adoption (favors projects with high recent activity)
Acceleratooor	Prioritize fast-growing projects	New and emerging projects gaining traction	Growth (favors projects with the largest net increase in impact)
Goldilocks	Achieve a more balanced distribution	Consistently active projects with steady engagement	Retention (favors projects maintaining impact over time)

Context

In 2025, Optimism’s Retro Funding program is shifting to a "metrics-driven, humans-in-the-loop" approach. Instead of voting on projects, citizens vote on algorithms. Each algorithm represents a different strategy for rewarding projects. Algorithms will evolve in response to voting, community feedback, and new ideas over the course of the season.

This particular round—Retro Funding S7: Onchain Builders—focuses on protocols and dApps that are helping grow the Superchain economy. See the round details on the Optimism governance forum for more on the mission’s objectives.

Expected Impact

The overall goals for this round include:

• Increasing network activity on the Superchain
• Attracting TVL inflows
• Driving cross-chain asset transfers and interop adoption

Because Retro Funding is retroactive, we place emphasis on demonstrable onchain impact—how many transactions a project was invoked in, how many users it has attracted, how much TVL it has received, and whether these metrics show meaningful retention or growth over time.

Scope

Although topline metrics for the Superchain economy are widely available, it is harder to provide a bottom-up estimate of the onchain builder ecosystem.

Below is a rough snapshot of the economic contribution from 450+ onchain builders that have received grants from the Optimism Foundation, including but not limited to past Retro Funding recipients.

• 300K+ active contract addresses linked to projects.
• 64M+ transactions.
• 1686 ETH+ spent in gas fees.
• $2.38B+ of aggregated TVL.
• 8.8M+ active addresses
• 150K+ Farcaster users (based on Farcaster IDs linked to addresses)

Note: all figures are as of January 2025, and are lower than actual figures as we have not accounted for new project sign-ups yet.

Evaluation Methodology

Overview

The OSO pipeline code is contained in our OnchainBuildersCalculator class and associated SQL models. Below is a high-level flow:

1. Data Collection: Gather transaction and trace-level data from the Superchain (contract invocation events, gas fees, active addresses, user labels, etc.), plus monthly TVL data from DefiLlama.
2. Eligibility Filtering: Exclude projects that don’t meet the minimum activity thresholds (detailed below).
3. Metric Aggregation: Consolidate raw data per project by chain, applying amortization logic when multiple projects are invoked in the same transaction.
4. Variant Computation: Generate time-based Adoption, Growth, and Retention metrics by comparing values across time periods.
5. Weighting & Scoring: Apply algorithm-specific metric and variant weightings to produce a single project score.
6. Normalization & Ranking: Adjust scores to ensure comparability, rank projects, and allocate funding proportionally.

Eligibility

All projects must meet minimum activity requirements (measured over the last 180 days) to earn rewards:

1. Transactions: The project's contracts must be invoked in at least 1000 succesful transactions.
2. Addresses: The project's contract must be invoked by at least 420 distinct addresses.
3. Active Days: The project's contracts must be invoked on at least 10 different calendar days.

DeFi projects can earn additional TVL rewards if they had at least $1M average TVL.

Why these thresholds?

We aim to focus on projects that have demonstrated some consistent level of real, non-bot usage on the Superchain. While these thresholds are somewhat arbitrary, they help exclude brand-new or inactive deployments that haven't yet proven traction.

Which chains are eligible?

OSO relies on the OP Labs for verifying project activity and computing onchain metrics. The following chains are included as of February 2025: Arena Z, Base, Ethernity, Ink, Lisk, Metal L2, Mode, OP Mainnet, RACE, Shape, Superseed, Swan Chain, Swellchain, Unichain, World Chain, Zora. Metrics should be available for projects on new chains within 30 days after mainnet launch.

How exactly are transactions counted?

Any successful transaction that invokes a project's contract as a to address is counted. This includes both direct contract invocations and contract invocations via traces (via delegatecall or call). The metric itself is calculated via a count distinct operation on the transaction hash.

How exactly are addresses counted?

Any address that invokes a project's contract as a from address is counted. This includes both direct contract invocations and contract invocations via traces (via delegatecall or call). In the case of internal transactions, the from address is still the address that originated the transaction. The metric itself is calculated via a count distinct operation on all from addresses.

Project-Level Metrics

Each project’s score is based on four key metrics:

1. TVL. The average Total Value Locked (in USD) during the measurement period, focusing on ETH, stablecoins, and eventually other qualified assets.
2. Transaction Counts. The count of unique, successful transaction hashes that result in a state change and involve one or more of a project’s contracts on the Superchain.
3. Gas Fees. The total L2 gas (gas consumed * gas price) for all successful transactions the results in a state change and involve one or more of a project’s contracts on the Superchain.
4. Monthly Active Users. The count of unique Farcaster IDs linked to addresses that initiated an event producing a state change with one or more of a project’s contracts.

These metrics are grouped by project and chain, with the potential to weight by interop- or chain-specific multipliers. Finally, we sum them across all chains to get a single aggregated value per project.

What data sources power these metrics?

• Project level metrics are derived from raw blockchain data maintained by OP Labs
• TVL data is maintained by DefiLlama
• OSO runs an open ETL pipeline for transforming and aggregating these data sources into the metrics described above.

How are transactions and gas fees attributed to projects?

• If a project’s contract is the to_address in the transaction, that project is attributed 50% of the impact.
• Any other projects whose contracts appear in the traces share the remaining 50%, split evenly.
• If no other projects appear in the traces, the to_address project receives 100% of the impact.
• If the to_address is not linked to a project in the round, but the traces include one or more known projects, then those projects together receive 50%, split evenly.

What forms of TVL do you capture?

We currently only look at "normal" TVL and ignore the value of assets held in treasuries. We don't double count assets in borrowing, staking, or vesting positions.

Do both the protocol and the asset issuer receive credit for TVL?

No. Currently the protocol (project) that holds the liquidity is attributed 100% of the average TVL. The asset issuer is, however, rewarded for network activity involving their asset.

We know addresses are not a good proxy for users. Why use them at all?

We are currently using Farcaster IDs as a proxy for more robust trusted user models. If a Farcaster ID is linked to multiple addresses, it only counts once.

We are working on integrating more sophisticated models in the future.

User numbers are not heavily weighted in any of the algorithms, so this is not a major factor in the scores.

How are user ops from account abstraction projects handled?

We are in the process of creating logic specifically for handling account abstraction-related transactions, which bundle actions from multiple users into the same same transaction. Once this ships, we will update the relevant models to count each qualified user op as a distinct transaction and smart contract wallet as a distinct address. In the meantime, activity from account abstraction projects is captured via the trace-level logic described above.

Time-Based Variants

For each core metric (i.e., transactions, gas fees, TVL, user counts), we present three variants for comparing the values for the current period vs. the previous period:

1. Adoption. The value for the current period only (e.g., the current month's transaction count). This captures the current level of adoption.
2. Growth. The positive difference between the current period and the previous period (e.g., net increase in TVL). Values are clipped at 0 if they decrease (no penalty for a decline, but no bonus, either).
3. Retention. The minimum between the current period and the previous period (e.g., how much of last month's TVL is still here). This variant rewards projects that post more consistent metrics over time.

Each algorithm we present has a different weighting of these variants. For instance, the Superscale algorithm places more emphasis on adoption (current period metrics), while the Acceleratooor algorithm places more emphasis on growth (net increases in metrics).

Show me an example

• If a project’s monthly transaction count was 10k last month and 15k this month:

  • Adoption = 15k
  • Growth = (15k - 10k) = 5k
  • Retention = min(10k, 15k) = 10k

• If another project’s monthly transaction count was 15k last month and 10k this month:

  • Adoption = 10k
  • Growth = (10k - 15k) = 0
  • Retention = min(15k, 10k) = 10k

Both have the same retention metric but different adoption and growth, so we can see how weighting these variants can reward different usage patterns.

Algorithm Settings & Weights

After we assemble the metrics and compute the variants, we apply the following algorithm-specific weights:

1. Chain Weights

   • Potential to provide chain-specific weightings, e.g., to account for differences in project representation by chain.
   • These weights are applied before anything else, to the pre-normalized chain-level metrics by project.
   • Note: all chain activity is weighted equally in the current algorithm design.

2. Metric Weights

   • Each metric (e.g., amortized_gas_fee, monthly_active_farcaster_users, monthly_average_tvl) has a base weight.
   • Setting a weight to 0 removes that metric from consideration.

3. Variant Weights

   • Each variant (adoption, growth, retention) also has a base weight.
   • For example, we might put more emphasis on “growth” to reward rapidly rising projects.

These multipliers are all described in a YAML config that the pipeline reads. They can be easily tuned to reflect different philosophies on how to reward onchain projects. We encourage the community to propose different settings that reflect how we want to reward certain forms of impact.

Crosschain Multipliers: Coming Soon^tm

• Purpose: In addition to all of the above, each project can qualify for “crosschain multipliers” for supporting interoperability-related features. Starting in H2, there will be a route-specific multiplier to projects’ scores based on the amount of crosschain activity they handle.
• Application of Crosschain Multiplier: Projects that qualify will receive a multiplier applied to their final score, increasing their potential reward.
  • Example: OP Mainnet ←→ Unichain has a 1.5X multiplier, and 30% of the project’s transactions occurred between these two chains, thus the projects gets a net multiplier of (1 + 0.5 * 0.3) = 1.15X.

Applying Weights

After we assemble the metrics and compute the variants, we min-max normalize each variant to a 0-1 scale.

Then, we multiply by the algorithm-specific weights described above:

normalized_variant_score = normalized_metric * metric_weight * variant_weight

To arrive at single project score, we take the power mean (with p=2) across all normalized variants. This somewhat penalizes “spiky” metrics and rewards a more balanced performance. Projects are not penalized for metrics for which they have null values (e.g., TVL metrics for non-defi projects).

Finalizing & Ranking

The following steps are applied to finalize results and convert them into a reward amount:

1. Normalize Scores

   • Normalize all project score values so that the sum across all eligible onchain builders = 1.

2. Reward Distribution

   • We can optionally apply a min/max reward cap. Then each project’s final score × pool size yields the reward, with amounts above or below the caps allocated to projects in the middle.
   • The reward distribution parameters are determined by the Optimism Foundation and are not algorithm-specific.

Proposed Algorithms

We have three placeholder algorithms. Each uses the same pipeline but different YAML configurations for metrics, variants, and chain weights.

Superscale

This algorithm aims to reward projects with significant current usage and established impact. It places heavier weights on the most recent values of TVL and transaction metrics, and less weight on other indicators. This strategy aims to embody the philosophy of "it's easier to agree on what was useful than what will be useful". You should vote for this algorithm if you want to keep things simple and give the whale projects the recognition they deserve.

Weightings & Sample Results

Weightings for Superscale:

• Chain Weights: Neutral. All chains are weighted equally.
• Metric Weights: Prefers TVL and transactions.
• Variant Weights: Adoption bias. Also gives a small weight to retention metrics.

Projects from Retro Funding 4 that score well include:

1. Aerodrome
2. Aave
3. Virtuals Protocol
4. Moonwell
5. Zora

Acceleratooor

This algorithm seeks to reward projects experiencing rapid growth over the current measurement period. In particular, it emphasizes growth (i.e., net increases) in TVL and transaction volume. The goal is to spot breakout stars and accelerate them. This is a good algorithm to vote for if you want to create a strong signal for rising projects that the Superchain is the place to be.

Weightings & Sample Results

Weightings for Acceleratooor:

• Chain Weights: Neutral. All chains are weighted equally.
• Metric Weights: Prefers TVL and transactions.
• Variant Weights: Growth bias. Also gives a small weight to retention metrics.

Projects from Retro Funding 4 that score well include:

1. Aave
2. Aerodrome
3. Virtuals Protocol
4. Compound Finance
5. Paragraph

Goldilocks

This algorithm seeks to evenly balance various aspects of impact. It places a moderate weight on each metric and prioritizes retention over sheer growth. The goal is to support steady, sustained contributions across the board rather than “spiky” projects that only excel in one area. This is a good algorithm to vote for if you want to support a wide range of projects.

Weightings & Sample Results

Weightings for Goldilocks:

• Chain Weights: Neutral. All chains are weighted equally.
• Metric Weights: Neutral. All metrics (TVL, transactions, gas, user counts) are weighted fairly evenly.
• Variant Weights: Retention bias. Adoption and growth are weighted less.

Projects from Retro Funding 4 that score well include:

1. Aerodrome
2. Zora
3. Aave
4. Layer3
5. LI.FI

Contributing to the Model

We welcome improvements to:

1. Data Coverage
   • Add new domain specific data sources (e.g., account abstraction, DeFi, bridges, etc).
   • Label contracts and addresses/users.
   • Create alternate TVL calculation methodologies.
2. Metrics and Time-Based Variants
   • Experiment with different metrics or iterations on existing onchain metrics.
   • Propose variants that apply synthetic controls or other types of "impact over baseline" logic.
3. Algorithmic Methods
   • Tweak weight settings, normalization, and aggregation logic.
   • Or propose entirely new algorithms.
4. Incentives Analysis
   • Model attack scenarios (i.e., trying to game the algorithm) and propose defense strategies.
   • Analyze historic performance of algorithms for different cohorts of projects.

These are just a few of our ideas! All data and code can be found in the Retro-Funding GitHub repo.

Further Resources

• Retro Funding Algorithms Repo
• Optimism Onchain Builders Mission Details
• DefiLlama Documentation (for how TVL is calculated)
• Superchain Data on BigQuery
• OSO Superchain S7 Metric Models
• OSO’s Onchain Builders Evaluation Notebook