AI ImpactQF + Regen Coordination Global GG23 Retrospective

MontyMerlin · July 7, 2025, 10:47am

Regen Coordination GG23 - Community Feedback Report

This feedback report synthesizes responses collected from participants and applicants across all three Regen Coordination GG23 rounds—Regen Coordination Global, ReFi Mediterranean, and Regen Rio de Janeiro. Feedback was gathered via a dedicated Tally form, where respondents were invited to rate their experiences regarding the application process, the fairness of outcomes, the quality of communication and support, and the overall program. In addition to quantitative ratings, the form solicited rich qualitative feedback, including reasons for their ratings, suggestions for improving the Gitcoin and Karma GAP experience, comments on impact reporting and evaluation processes, and any other ideas or reflections participants wished to share. This report aims to cluster and synthesize these insights to inform future improvements and highlight key themes emerging from the community’s experience.

Overview Summary

Regen Coordination Global

Number of responses: 9
Average Score: 4.65 / 5
Breakdown:
– The application process: 4.8
– The fairness of outcome: 4.3
– The communication and support: 4.7
– The overall program: 4.8

Most participants rated the Regen Coordination Global round very highly across all categories, highlighting a well-documented program, clear communication, and strong support from organizers. Respondents appreciated the clarity of expectations and the resources provided for both donors and grantees. However, some concerns were raised about the fairness of outcomes, particularly regarding the COCM (Community of Communities Model) and Quadratic Funding mechanisms. One participant felt that these systems could be manipulated by coordinated groups or fake accounts, potentially disadvantaging genuine projects and creating “donor fatigue.” Despite this, the majority of feedback was positive, with participants noting the transparency, helpfulness, and overall effectiveness of the program.

ReFi Mediterranean

Number of responses: 1
Average Score: 5 / 5

With only a single response, all aspects of the ReFi Mediterranean round received perfect scores. While this is a positive indicator, more responses would be needed to draw representative conclusions or identify specific themes.

Regen Rio de Janeiro

Number of responses: 5
Average Score: 4.7 / 5
Breakdown:
– The application process: 4.6
– The fairness of outcome: 4.6
– The communication and support: 4.8
– The overall program: 4.8

Participants in the Regen Rio de Janeiro round also gave high marks, especially for communication, support, and the overall program. Respondents described the experience as inspiring, with strong community engagement and effective support from organizers. The timely delivery of resources and the organization of follow-up activities were particularly appreciated. Some feedback pointed to areas for improvement, such as occasional confusion in the process, communication issues among round operators, and the need for better onboarding and security protocols for new users unfamiliar with Web3 wallets. Overall, the round was seen as transparent, fair, and impactful, with a few suggestions for enhancing clarity and user support in future rounds.

Now moving on to deeper thematic analysis of the richer qualitative feedback also provided from respondents in the feedback form:

1. Application Process & User Experience

Positive Feedback:

Many respondents found the application process clear, well-documented, and user-friendly.

“It was a well documented program with all the resources for donors and grantees to make informed decisions every sep of the process”
“Overall very user friendly and great support!”

Areas for Improvement:

Some found the process confusing or inaccessible, especially for those less familiar with Web3 or digital tools.

“I couldn’t quite figure any of that out which is one of the reason’s I didn’t apply… that and knowing that because our community doesn’t have that strong of a crypto presence… the amount of work required for the potential payout would just not make the numbers line up.”

Suggestions:

Improve onboarding, navigation, and language support (especially for non-English speakers).

“It’s still too early to say, but my feedback is mainly about making the platform more accessible to Portuguese-speaking users. I noticed that there is no support for Portuguese.” (translated)

Make the process more accessible for analog, global south, and non-Web3 native participants.

2. Fairness, Evaluation, and Outcome Perception

Positive Feedback:

The majority of participants felt the process was fair, transparent, and balanced.

“It was a very detailed process with multiple layers of evaluation, a balanced approach.”
“The team organized multiple support rounds and were very efficient… really transparent, consistent and fair with the outcome.”

Critical Feedback:

Others expressed perceived bias or issues with the evaluation criteria.

“The current impact reporting and evaluation process doesn’t feel entirely fair. It often favors those who are more experienced in framing their work in technical or metrics-heavy language, rather than those actually creating meaningful on-the-ground impact.”
“Rated a 2 in the fairness of outcome because of an expressed lack of faith in the COCM mechanism”

Concerns Raised:

The process may favor projects skilled in digital/metrics-heavy reporting over grassroots, analog, or less technical projects.
Potential for conflicts of interest (e.g., council members with projects in their own rounds).
Risk of competition and “popularity contest” dynamics, rather than true impact assessment.

Suggestions:

Increase contextual understanding and diversity in evaluation panels.
Separate governance and grantee/operator roles to avoid conflicts of interest
Consider anonymizing projects during voting to reduce bias and focus on project qualities.

3. Karma GAP Platform & Impact Reporting

Positive Feedback:

Many found the platform useful for tracking and reporting impact.

“everything was clear and well articulated, no surprises what we were being judged on and our impact”

Critical Feedback:

Some found Karma GAP difficult to use and identified bugs in the software + difficulty in tracking non-digital or ecosystem work.

“Karma GAP needs significant improvements before it can be considered a mandatory tool. It is difficult to track ecosystem work outside the main GitHub or DAO tools.”
“Karma GAP was a bit clunky to fill out metrics. Also there were sometimes many similar indicators in the dropdown menu/autocomplete, which may or may not be suitable. A lack of consistency makes it hard to compare metrics like for like.”
“Often it feels like it takes more time to prove impact than to make impact, which does not make sense. A new system should be created.”

Suggestions:

Improve UI/UX, onboarding, and navigation.
Add features for better status updates and progress tracking for projects.
Automate impact proofs and reduce the reporting burden, especially for intangible or qualitative impact.

4. Communication & Support

Positive Feedback:

Many praised the support and communication from organizers.

“The guys were always available to assist, if we had questions or needed help, the communication was as clear as daylight, especially as to how the money would be paid out.”
“The team organized multiple support rounds and were very efficient of organizing everything.”

Areas for Improvement:

Some noted occasional confusion or communication breakdowns.
“houve alguns ruidos na comunicação entre os operadores do Round que atrapalharam o entendimento geral.”

Suggestions:

Provide more real-time updates and status tracking for projects and donors.

“Would be nice to keep donors better informed as the round progresses - not sure how we could automate round updates? For example, crowdfunding apps let you send emails to all your donors.”

5. Inclusivity, Diversity, and Accessibility

Concerns:

The process may unintentionally exclude analog, grassroots, or global south projects, and those not engaging with AI or digital tools.

“I would recommend that you guys ensure that you have analog, global south participants when you decide how to frame future rounds and also that you provide some kind of parity for projects who are choosing not to engage with AI.”

Suggestions:

Broaden accessibility and support for non-digital, non-English, and less technical participants.
Ensure evaluation criteria and processes are inclusive of diverse types of impact and project approaches.

6. Quadratic Funding, COCM Algorithm, and Voting Dynamics

Critical Feedback:

Concerns about the COCM algorithm and QF mechanisms leading to unintended consequences:

“Encouraging donors to vote for more projects creates the opposite effect of Gitcoin growth. It creates ‘Donor Fatigue’ making it harder for voters, making them put more money when they really do not want to, and discouragement of the more genuine, ethical and honest projects / stewards / donors.”

Suggestions:

Re-evaluate the goals and outcomes of the COCM system.
Consider mechanisms to reduce gaming, donor fatigue, and to better align incentives with genuine impact.

7. Security, Resource Management, and Onboarding

Suggestions:

Provide security protocols and onboarding for new users, especially those unfamiliar with Web3 wallets and resource management.

“My suggestion is to create security protocols for the projects to follow as soon as they receive the resource, directing them to a possible off-ramp with security.”

8. General Praise and Encouragement

Many respondents expressed gratitude, appreciation, and encouragement for the organizers and the process.

“Congrats for this beautiful work, is very important support who is invisible for the system, but do a great impact for every one.”
“keep up the good work!”

9. Meta-Reflection: Tensions and Trade-offs

There is a recurring tension between digital/metrics-based evaluation and the recognition of intangible, qualitative, or grassroots impact.
The need for both transparency and inclusivity, and for systems that are robust against manipulation but not overly burdensome or exclusive.
The challenge of scaling impact evaluation while maintaining trust, fairness, and community alignment.

Feedback Summary Table

Theme	Positive Feedback	Critical Feedback / Concerns	Suggestions / Requests
Application Process & UX	Clear, user-friendly for some	Confusing, inaccessible for others	Better onboarding, navigation, language support
Fairness & Evaluation	Transparent, balanced for some	Perceived bias, favoring digital/metrics	Diverse panels, anonymized voting, separate roles
Karma GAP & Impact Reporting	Useful for some	Buggy, unintuitive, hard for non-digital	UI/UX improvements, automation, easier editing
Communication & Support	Responsive, clear	Occasional confusion	More real-time updates, status tracking
Inclusivity & Accessibility	-	Excludes analog, non-English, grassroots	Broaden accessibility, inclusive criteria
QF/COCM & Voting	-	Manipulation, donor fatigue, misaligned incentives	Re-evaluate mechanisms, reduce gaming
Security & Onboarding	-	-	Security protocols, onboarding for new users

Conclusion

The feedback from GG23 Regen Coordination participants reveals a vibrant, committed community with a strong desire for fairness, inclusivity, and meaningful impact. While many aspects of the process are praised, there are clear calls for improvements in accessibility, evaluation fairness, platform usability, and the alignment of funding mechanisms with real-world impact. Addressing these themes will help strengthen trust, participation, and the overall effectiveness of future rounds.