Would love your feedback on what constitutes acceptable grant promotion during a round.
Before GG18 I was planning something called The Ultimate ReFi Giveaway where we swept the floors of our favourite ReFi NFTs & tokenised impact to give these assets away the community.
So far, we have just been giving them to people who use the #TouchTree hashtag & people who retweet the GITCOIN RADIO space.
Is it also acceptable to give some of these NFTs away to people who like our page, for example? What about people who retweet something that links to our grant?
During a space with Ben West during GR17 it was said that advertising is ok & essentially the blue tick does boost content. But to run a giveaway which does not incentivise donations but promotions of a donation link, is a grey area and so it was recommended that I post that in the forum to see what people think.
Thanks @Jimi for the thoughts and questions here. My first reaction would to say yes this is probably very much a grey area
So you know, quid pro quo is a violation of the rules, and grantees have been removed from a round in the past because of it. So i would tread carefully, just to be safe. Let’s see what @M0nkeyFl0wer has to say on this though. Maybe promoting a space is alright, but promoting the link to your grant is where things start walking on a thing line.
Cool yeah makes sense, even if this would technically avoid that rule, probably best to just avoid that to be on the safe side aye.
So if the line is to not incentivise the promotion of links, incentivising page follows or non-Gitcoin related posts like most giveaways do is safe during a round or also no?
that doesn’t really make sense to me. why restrict something that can just be done later? it’s not difficult to keep track of who donates, and tell them “we have to wait until the round ends so we don’t get in trouble.” does that prevent them from applying for later rounds? if not, then why bother to have this restriction in the first place? i am new, so maybe i am just misunderstanding something…
Does anyone have any policies/practices to suggest, regarding how round operators should approach grant applications from projects they are associated with?
Is it enough for such individuals to recuse themselves from voting on whether or not their associated project gets accepted? Or have other community rounds had stricter conflict of interest policies prohibiting matching funds going to projects which one of the round operators is associated with?
I totally missed this! But this behaviour encourages sybil attacks and that’s a huge reason why it’s a rule. We cannot control what grantees do after a round, but if you’re promising anything of value before and during a round i.e. incentivizing donations that’s a big no no. If you’re known to give rewards to your donors round after round, that’s also something that can get flagged.
Hypercerts are a little different because they are closely correlated to impact (and soon will most likely have impact verification attached).
sorry if i am steering the thread slightly off topic, but it seems like a relevant place to ask this.
i was wondering if it’s possible to get clarification on what is involved in the process of reviewing donations after the round ends. i have heard it referred to as “de-duplication” so i know there is a check for sybils happening at the least.
i think it might be beneficial to anyone hosting a grant to be aware of anything they are not supposed to do. i understand there also may be some reasons to not make this process totally public, since that might help bad actors avoid detection. if there is any information that can be safely shared, it would be much appreciated.
specifically one thing i was wondering, is it a problem if there is a donation that comes from the same address that receives the payment. in my case, i created a grant for Qortal, and used my own address as the recipient, instead of creating a separate one. this address was also previously used by me for a personal grant in Citizens Round #2.
i would like to show my personal support for this project, but i am hesitant to do something that will raise questions or suspicions about the activity during review. thanks in advance for any advice on this!
