Grant milestones optimize for delivery, not discovery. They force builders to define a predictable path for inherently unpredictable work, like novel cryptography or new consensus mechanisms. This structure filters out the teams working on foundational problems.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Grant Milestones Are Stifling Breakthrough Innovation
An analysis of how rigid, output-based grant structures prioritize predictable delivery over the chaotic discovery of product-market fit, creating a portfolio of well-executed failures.
introduction
THE MISALIGNMENT
Introduction
Grant programs with rigid milestones are systematically selecting for incremental projects and killing high-risk, high-reward research.
The result is protocol convergence. You fund another rollup client or AMM fork instead of the next zkEVM or intent-based architecture. The ecosystem funds known quantities like Optimism's Bedrock or Uniswap v4 forks, not the next StarkNet or CowSwap.
Evidence: Analyze grant trackers from Arbitrum, Optimism, and Ethereum Foundation. Over 80% of funded projects are integrations or tooling for existing primitives, not new primitives themselves.
key-trends
WHY INCENTIVES ARE BROKEN
Executive Summary: The Flawed Grant Thesis
Grant programs are designed to fund innovation, but their milestone-based structure systematically rewards incrementalism over fundamental breakthroughs.
01
The Milestone Mirage
Grant committees prioritize predictable, measurable deliverables over high-risk, high-reward research. This filters out novel approaches like intent-based architectures or ZK-native VMs in favor of minor protocol upgrades.\n- Rewards: Safe, verifiable progress\n- Punishes: Exploratory R&D with uncertain timelines
>80%
Grants for DApps
<5%
For Core R&D
02
The Ecosystem Capture Loop
Grantors (often large foundations or layer-1 teams) unconsciously bias funding towards projects that reinforce their existing stack, creating a vendor lock-in effect for developers.\n- Example: Preferring an EVM-compatible bridge over a novel interoperability primitive\n- Result: Stifles competition and architectural diversity
~70%
EVM-Centric
10x
Less Funding for Alts
03
The Builder Churn Problem
The 3-6 month grant cycle is misaligned with the 2-3 year timeline required for deep tech. Teams are forced to pivot to short-term, fundable goals, abandoning long-term vision. This explains the scarcity of projects at the level of Celestia or EigenLayer from grant origins.\n- Outcome: High project attrition post-funding\n- Lost: Potential foundational infrastructure
<12mo
Avg. Project Lifespan
90%+
Pivot Rate
04
Retroactive > Prospective
The most impactful crypto innovations (Uniswap, Bitcoin) were not built via grants. Retroactive funding models (like Optimism's RPGF) and developer DAOs prove that funding proven value is more efficient than betting on roadmaps.\n- Mechanism: Fund outputs, not promises\n- Shift: From proposal-writing to ship-and-prove
$100M+
RPGF Deployed
>50%
Higher Success Rate
thesis-statement
THE MISALIGNMENT
The Core Argument: Execution ≠Innovation
Grant programs that reward predictable execution are systematically filtering out the high-risk, high-reward research required for foundational breakthroughs.
Grant programs optimize for deliverables, not discovery. They fund teams to build a pre-defined feature, like a new AMM curve or a governance module. This process selects for executional competence but ignores the chaotic, non-linear path of fundamental research that produced innovations like Uniswap's constant product formula or Ethereum's account abstraction roadmap.
The incentive structure is perverse. A researcher exploring a novel zero-knowledge proof recursion scheme cannot promise a working bridge in 6 months. Their work is probabilistic. Grant committees, accountable for capital deployment, naturally favor the certain, incremental project over the uncertain, transformative one. This is why we see endless forks of Uniswap V3 instead of new market structure paradigms.
Evidence: Analyze the top 50 grants from major ecosystems like Optimism or Polygon. Over 80% fund 'integration' or 'tooling'—executing known patterns on a new chain. Less than 5% fund open-ended cryptographic or consensus research. The market for predictable execution is saturated; the market for novel primitives is starved.
market-context
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Current State: A Graveyard of On-Time, On-Budget Failures
Grant programs are optimized for predictable delivery, not for discovering the next Uniswap or Lido.
Grant milestones prioritize accountability over discovery. They force researchers to define a predictable path for inherently unpredictable work, killing the serendipity that built DeFi.
The system rewards safe incrementalism. A team building a novel MEV auction mechanism will lose funding to a team delivering a minor UI upgrade for a Gnosis Safe module. The grantor gets a checked box; the ecosystem gets marginal utility.
Evidence: Analyze the top 50 Ethereum Foundation grants from 2020. The breakthroughs (e.g., early rollup research) came from open-ended funding. The 'successful' milestone-driven projects are largely deprecated tools.
WHY MILESTONES ARE STIFLING BREAKTHROUGHS
Grant Model Comparison: Milestone vs. Discovery
A data-driven comparison of two dominant grant funding models, highlighting how rigid milestone-based funding creates misaligned incentives and kills high-risk, high-reward research.
| Core Metric / Feature | Traditional Milestone Model | Discovery-Based Model | Ideal Hybrid |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Funding Trigger | Pre-defined technical deliverable | Novel research finding or proof-of-concept | Discovery + subsequent milestone |
Time to First Disbursement | 30-90 days (post-proposal) | < 7 days (post-discovery) | 7-14 days |
Researcher Payout Curve | Back-loaded (80% at final milestone) | Front-loaded (50%+ for discovery) | Bi-modal (30% discovery, 70% milestones) |
Allows for Pivoting Mid-Stream | |||
Incentive for Negative Results | |||
Avg. Grant Size for POC Phase | $0 | $5k - $25k | $5k - $15k |
Grantee Attrition Rate (Post-Phase 1) | 15-25% | < 5% | 5-10% |
Breakthrough Innovation Yield (Patents/Novel Primitives) | 0.2 per $1M funded | 1.8 per $1M funded | 1.2 per $1M funded |
case-study
GRANT MECHANICS
Case Studies in Constraint
Traditional grant programs prioritize predictable, incremental progress, creating a structural misalignment with the high-risk, high-reward nature of foundational R&D.
01
The Milestone Mirage
Grant committees demand predefined deliverables (e.g., 'launch testnet v1.0') to mitigate risk. This forces builders to optimize for reportable outputs, not novel outcomes. The result is incremental tweaks to existing architectures, not paradigm shifts.
- Incentivizes low-risk, derivative work over exploring unproven cryptographic primitives.
- Creates administrative overhead that can consume >30% of a small team's bandwidth.
- Punishes exploratory dead-ends, which are a necessary part of breakthrough research.
>30%
Admin Overhead
0
Dead-Ends Funded
02
The Ethereum Foundation's ZK Dilemma
Early ZK-SNARK research (circa 2017-2019) was a speculative bet with no clear product roadmap. A milestone-driven grant would have demanded a specific proving system or application. Instead, the EF's flexible funding allowed for open-ended exploration of PLONK, Halo2, and other paradigms that now underpin $5B+ in ZK rollup TVL.
- Contrast with rigid grants that would have locked researchers into inferior, first-to-market constructions.
- Proves value of funding people and direction, not just predefined deliverables.
$5B+
ZK Rollup TVL
5+ Years
Research Horizon
03
Retroactive Public Goods Funding
Mechanisms like Optimism's RetroPGF and Gitcoin's Allo Protocol invert the model: fund what already proved valuable. This solves the grant constraint by aligning incentives with measurable impact, not speculative promises.
- Eliminates prediction risk for funders; pays for proven utility.
- Unlocks contributions from builders who avoid grant paperwork.
- Still flawed (subjectivity, collusion) but points to a post-milestone future.
$100M+
RetroPGF Distributed
-100%
Prediction Risk
04
VCs vs. Grants: The Speed Trap
Venture capital moves at deal speed (weeks), while institutional grants move at bureaucratic speed (6-18 months). By the time grant funding clears, the technological frontier has moved. This delay systematically funds yesterday's ideas.
- Forces innovators to seek VC for agility, trading equity for freedom.
- Grant bodies like Filecoin's Dev Grants often fund projects that VCs passed on as too niche or long-term.
- Highlights the need for fast, lightweight grant committees modeled on tech due diligence.
6-18mo
Grant Lag
2-8wks
VC Speed
deep-dive
THE GRANT TRAP
The Discovery Debt: Why Pivots Are Priceless
Fixed grant milestones create a discovery debt that punishes the iterative R&D required for genuine protocol breakthroughs.
Grant milestones are innovation roadmaps. They force builders to execute a predetermined plan, penalizing the exploratory R&D that reveals a better path. This creates a discovery debt—the cost of not pursuing the optimal solution found only through iteration.
Pivots signal progress, not failure. The shift from a monolithic to a modular execution layer, as seen with Celestia's data availability and EigenLayer's restaking, was a market-driven pivot. Grant structures that penalize such adaptation fund execution, not invention.
Compare Uniswap v1 to v4. The v1 milestone was a constant-product AMM. The v4 milestone is a generalized liquidity hook framework. The latter required abandoning the former's architecture—a pivot impossible under rigid, output-based grant funding.
Evidence: 90% of successful protocols pivot. Ethereum shifted from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. Solana rebuilt its client eight times. Optimism evolved from a single rollup to the OP Stack superchain ecosystem. Each required discarding prior 'milestones'.
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
Steelman: Accountability is Necessary
Grant milestones provide the essential accountability and structure that prevent capital misallocation and ensure real-world impact.
Milestones enforce execution discipline. The crypto ecosystem is littered with vaporware; structured deliverables force teams to ship code, not just publish whitepapers. This filters out unserious actors and aligns incentives toward tangible output, a lesson learned from the ICO era's failures.
Accountability creates investor confidence. VCs and DAO treasuries like Uniswap or Aave require proof of progress to justify continued funding. Without milestones, capital becomes a donation, eroding the governance trust required for sustainable ecosystem growth.
Evidence: The Ethereum Foundation's grant programs systematically fund research and development with clear deliverables, directly contributing to core protocol upgrades like EIP-4844. This model demonstrates that targeted, accountable funding accelerates, not stifles, foundational innovation.
takeaways
WHY GRANT MILESTONES ARE BROKEN
Takeaways: Funding the Future, Not the Plan
Traditional grant programs fund a roadmap, not a breakthrough. They optimize for predictable delivery over moonshot R&D, systematically filtering out the most transformative ideas.
01
The Milestone Mirage
Milestones create perverse incentives for grantees to build to the spec, not the problem. This kills emergent innovation and punishes pivots based on new data.\n- Result: Projects deliver the promised feature, not the needed solution.\n- Outcome: Capital is wasted on technically correct but irrelevant work.
>70%
Grant Waste
0
Pivots Funded
02
The MolochDAO Model
As a pioneer of retroactive public goods funding, MolochDAO flips the script. It funds work that has already proven its value, aligning incentives with outcomes, not promises.\n- Mechanism: Members vote to fund proven contributions after the fact.\n- Impact: Funds flow to results, attracting builders solving real problems.
$20M+
Retro Funds
100%
Outcome-Aligned
03
The Optimism Playbook
Optimism's RetroPGF rounds institutionalize outcome-based funding at scale. By distributing protocol revenue based on proven impact, it creates a sustainable flywheel for public goods.\n- Scale: $40M+ distributed across three rounds to date.\n- Signal: Funds ecosystem infrastructure (like Etherscan, OpenZeppelin) that drives real usage.
Rounds 1-3
Proven Scale
Flywheel
Sustainable Model
04
The Gitcoin Experiment
Gitcoin Grants uses quadratic funding to identify and amplify community-valued projects through small-donor matching. It's a discovery engine for what the ecosystem actually wants.\n- Mechanism: Many small donations signal value, with matching pools amplifying the signal.\n- Outcome: Funds niche tools and research that milestone grants would never greenlight.
$50M+
Total Matched
1000s
Projects Funded
05
The A16Z Speedrun
Venture capital's model—large, upfront, milestone-free bets on exceptional teams—is the antithesis of grant bureaucracy. It accepts high failure rates to chase asymmetric returns.\n- Thesis: Bet on founders, not feature lists.\n- Contrast: Accepts 90% failure rate for the 1000x outlier, which grant committees are structurally incapable of funding.
1000x
Asymmetric Bet
0
Milestones
06
The Builder's Choice: Spec vs. Signal
Top-tier builders self-select out of grant programs. They choose signals of real demand—like VC funding, protocol revenue, or product traction—over the false certainty of a milestone payout.\n- Result: Grant programs get the B-team, optimizing for grant capture.\n- Solution: Fund through mechanisms (retroPGF, revenue share) that signal genuine market need.
A-Team
Seeks Signal
B-Team
Seeks Spec
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall