Yes. However, the mutual grants that were considered were totally new startups or DAOs (DeveloperDAO, PrimeDAO, Wonderverse) or exchange of governance and holdings (Radical). My thinking is that we didn’t subsidize businesses the users of the protocol would need like:
a good way to scale grant reviews
a way to benefit from economies of scale in grant reviews
an evaluation ecosystem for grant or user reviews
an appeals insurance for users and grants
freemium sybil defense with upgraded features
Which brings to the next point:
I don’t think it is about the $$$ already given, though I’m sure some disagree. i think it is about the following scenarios
a workstream manages their treasury well and makes profit
a workstream applies for a grant outside of gitcoin that overlaps with gitcoin work
a workstream finds and sells revenue generating services
Instead of returning these to the DAO treasury, these funds should be the future investment. Basically, anything you make while the DAO is still subsidizing your business. That said, I think workstreams should try to spin out profit generators with their knowledge and expertise, but the workstreams may still exist until their core problem is solved.
Not that I know of for GTC utility. There are a few good ideas and some modeling for specific ideas, but it isn’t like we aren’t sharing them publicly… they are just ideas between some people that haven’t gained traction to the level of publicly sharing. Some even come from supporters, but not contributors. I’m comfortable sharing half-baked ideas, but not everyone is.
I know there are others. CSDO has been putting it off the last couple months, but I believe we have this on the schedule to address soon. And like last time, it will be debated on the forum.
Thanks for your response. I’m not sure I understand all of your points… I will wait until these ideas make it into proposals before commenting further!
Very interesting read.
I am also a fan of Gitcoin. I hold GTC, read the Digest, contribute to other projects, and participate as grantee.
I am grateful for Gitcoin and the thoughtful team that has enabled so much impact to be achieved.
That said.
There’s a step back to give to understand what does value mean. If we are here for speculating with the economic return GTC can provide to holders, then it’s the path ahead.
But what if value is something different?
Honest questions, I’d appreciate getting answers from others:
Does Gitcoin need to speculate with GTC to survive? Can Gitcoin maintain itself with other ways, such as a fee for the stewarding and promotion of funding campaigns, or working group units that compete and collaborate to deliver value to the ecosystem?
A blessed 2023 for all you champs who are using your living time to do good in the world.
I also want to +1 this. Creating speculative value around our governance token (GTC) I think is very dangerous. We should look towards other sources of revenue.
Thank you for taking the time to write this post. I think you have an excellent view on things and I personally loved the way you “zoomed in” on some issues like 3, while also “zooming out” on others like 4.
Idk why my intuition tells me that we will have a big positive surprise this year in store for GTC. I think that the team didn’t want 2 attach a use case for GTC, just to create utility in a kinda “forced” and web2ish way.
My view is that there are 3 scenarios that could take place:
Extended bear market in which GTC could go as low as 0.1$
Mixed sentiment market, meaning that the bears and bulls will fight until the next halving (2024) in which case GTC could go to 0.25-0.75 $ range.
Pseudo bull market, GTC goes over 2$
GTC use case is not an easy one, but I’m sure that the contributors, WS leads, SC and stewards(like me) are actively strategizing, thinking, etc
This is very concise!