DeSci - Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking report

🧐 Gitcoin Sensemaking Szn
1

The Problem & Importance of Decentralized Science (DeSci)

Science is built upon cumulative knowledge, peer review, and the free exchange of ideas. Yet, the traditional academic ecosystem imposes significant structural constraints on these foundations. Peer-reviewed publications, while critical to validating discoveries, often require authors to transfer copyright to publishers, limiting access to knowledge and the broader dissemination of research. For instance, the seminal work on Quadratic Funding by Vitalik Buterin, ZoĂ« Hitzig, and E. Glen Weyl, published in Management Science (Copyright © 2019, INFORMS), exemplifies this tension. While the preprint is freely accessible, the formal version is behind a paywall and the peer reviewers—whose expertise ensures the work’s rigor—receive no financial compensation, offering their labor purely as a professional obligation.

A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods - Preprint edition on Gitcoin Website

954×866 109 KB

A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods - Postprint edition (official) on Informs. Single article purchase $30.00, owned by INFORMS
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3337

For-profit academic journals have been found to charge up to four-times the amount of non-profit publishers. Submission fee ranges from $150-$5,000 USD, and subscription fees quickly add up. In 2012, Harvard University paid over $16,000,000 to academic publishers. Typically, these publishers operate at 30%+ profit margin. The largest of which, Elsevier, is responsible for publishing over 24% of scientific papers and collects over $3,000,000,000 in revenue every year.

from The business model of for-profit academic publishers, ResearchHub (Ref)

These systemic limitations are part of the larger problem DeSci seeks to address. By enabling research outputs, funding mechanisms, and peer review to be open, transparent, and community-governed, DeSci restores academic freedom and broadens access to scientific knowledge. It transforms essential but invisible contributions—like reviewing, iterating on complex proofs, or designing funding formulas—into acknowledged public goods.

Without decentralized, open frameworks, the fruits of scientific labor remain constrained by copyright, publisher mandates, or short-term funding pressures. DeSci ensures that innovations—whether in cryptography, peer-to-peer economics, quadratic funding, or emerging scientific methods—can be shared, validated, and built upon, independent of institutional gatekeepers.

While DeSci may not produce breakthroughs like penicillin or the optical fiber network in 6 months, it will cultivate the infrastructure for long-term scientific freedom and innovation, e.g. cryptography. Just as water and oxygen are essential yet invisible, DeSci will underpin the scientific ecosystem quietly but indispensably. By supporting DeSci today, platforms like Gitcoin and Ethereum public goods funding are planting the seeds that, decades later, will sustain a truly open and collaborative global research community.

Gitcoin’s Unique Role & Fundraising

All in all, there have been five Gitcoin Grant DeSci community rounds since Q4 2022.

Time Round Matching pool Number of Projects Number of Donors
Sep 2022 GR 15 and team initiated and led by Boris Dyakov 567k 82 2309
May 2023 Beta Round and team - led by Boris Dyakv and Manuel Olariu 75k 65 267
Apr 2024 GG20 and team - led by Manuel Olariu 25K 29 292
Aug 2024 GG21 and team - led by Swift Evo 39K 49 390
Mar 2025 GG23 and team - led by Swift Evo 5K 21 80
Sum 711K 249 3338

Endorsements

1st DeSci Round of 2022 under Ethereum Foundation, Vitalik and other strong supporter endorsement.

1200×675 899 KB

The essence of a successful round extends beyond allocation of funds; it lies in the invaluable exposure to a like-minded community and the opportunities for networking and collaboration it presents. The DeSci round exemplifies this ethos, serving as a catalyst for forging long-term, collaborative connections in the DeSci ecosystem.

from Enabling DeSci: Gitcoin’s Role in Transforming Scientific Funding, 2024
Ref:Enabling DeSci: Gitcoin's Role in Transforming Scientific Funding | Gitcoin Blog

1200×600 252 KB

Success Measurement & Reflection

What specific outcomes will show success within 6 months?

Within six months, participating regional DeSci communities will have nominated suitable grassroots projects to join the round. This nomination process will reflect the decentralized nature of the initiative—discussions and decision-making will take place independently within each region, guided by local priorities, cultural contexts, and ecosystem needs.

Each regional partner will identify and elevate projects that demonstrate both local relevance and alignment with DeSci principles, ensuring a diverse portfolio across geographies. Following nomination, communities will take an active role in tracking and assessing project outcomes. This will shift the post-round engagement model from passive data collection to proactive impact verification—regional communities will engage directly with grantees, conduct follow-up interviews, and gather qualitative insights to complement quantitative reporting.

By the six-month mark, we expect to see:

  1. A complete set of regional nominations (5–8 projects per partner).

  2. Cross-region visibility of grassroots DeSci initiatives through shared documentation and storytelling.

  3. Community-led impact tracking where regional partners actively report progress and learnings from their nominated projects.

How will we measure genuine impact beyond just activity metrics?

We will adopt a layered measurement framework:

  • Tier 1 – Round Operator: Oversees the process design, ensures alignment with Ethereum public goods principles, and maintains transparency in reporting.

  • Tier 2 – Geographical Communities: Act as both nominators and local verifiers, applying contextual understanding to assess the relevance and effectiveness of projects.

  • Tier 3 – Grassroots Projects: Deliver on their proposed outcomes, engage with their communities, and integrate feedback loops for continuous improvement.

Impact measurement will extend beyond raw activity counts by emphasizing ecosystem connectivity and collaborative potential. For example, a project in DeSci India could establish a working relationship with Greenpill India or Celo India, creating cross-ecosystem synergies that outlast the funding cycle.

Sustainability will be embedded into the funding model through regular DeSci rounds, enabling a steady flow of resources to grassroots initiatives. As projects mature, their integration into the broader network—via Gitcoin rounds, regional collaborations, and thematic partnerships—will serve as a strong indicator of enduring impact.

Success will be defined not just by the immediate outputs of individual grantees, but by the strength and resilience of the interconnected DeSci ecosystem they form.

Fundraising Check

To ensure the long-term viability of the DeSci Localism Round, we will actively seek external co-funding and strategic support from aligned networks, including Ethereum Localism, Allo Capital, the Greenpill Network, Celo, Glo Dollar, and other established DeSci communities. These partners share our commitment to decentralized, community-driven funding for public goods, making them natural collaborators in amplifying the impact of grassroots science initiatives.

Our team brings a proven fundraising track record. Since 2022, we have successfully hosted five DeSci community rounds, mobilizing resources across diverse ecosystems and distributing them transparently to projects with measurable impact. This history demonstrates not only our operational capacity but also the trust we have earned within the global DeSci and Ethereum public goods community.

By combining our established fundraising infrastructure with these strategic partnerships, we aim to:

  1. Leverage matching contributions to increase total funds available for distribution.

  2. Diversify funding sources to reduce reliance on a single platform or donor base.

  3. Build recurring revenue streams through sustained engagement with aligned public goods funding events and networks.

This multi-pronged fundraising approach will allow us to maintain a steady flow of resources into grassroots DeSci projects, reinforcing the network’s resilience and capacity for long-term growth.

Domain information - DeSci

1. Round Objective

To fund and grow grassroots DeSci projects through regional community partnerships, embodying Ethereum Localism and ensuring that funding reaches initiatives with proven local impact.

2. Key Principles

  • Local Knowledge First – Regional DeSci communities know their ecosystem’s needs best.

  • Cross-Ecosystem Collaboration – Engage with Ethereum-aligned networks like Greenpill and ReFi DAO for external review and cross-pollination.

  • Sustainability – Maintain a capped pool with roll-over for long-term funding continuity.

Transparency – Clear nomination, review, and reporting processes to ensure fairness and accountability.

3. Participation Structure

  • Regional Partners:

    • Target 5–7 regional DeSci communities (e.g., Latam, Asia, Africa, DesciWorld, DeSc nodes in Euro).

    • Each partner nominates 5–8 projects from their local ecosystem.

  • Total Expected Projects: 25–50.

4. Nomination Process

  • Regional communities select nominees based on local relevance, impact potential, and alignment with DeSci principles.

    • DeSci LATAM
    • DeSci Asia
    • DeSci Africa
    • DeSci World
    • etc

  • Nominees must be connected to the regional DeSci network and demonstrate prior or potential contributions to public goods.

5. Review Process

  • Local Review: 1 independent reviewer from the same region, with a proven track record in local DeSci development.

  • External Review: Cross-region reviewer or partner from Greenpill / ReFi DAO.

  • All reviewers sign conflict-of-interest declarations before assessment.

6. Distribution

  • Grants allocated via Quadratic Funding and COCM (if Gitcoin platform available or make it on Garden) or an alternative open-source matching system.
  • We will also consider distributing part of funding through retroPGF according to grass root projects past achievement.
  • A certain amount in the funding will be reserved for the working team and the regional community to ensure their contribution is recognized.
  • Equal opportunity for all nominees, the working team will determine the final decision.

7. Post-Round Impact Tracking

  • Regional partners collect quarterly updates from their nominated projects.

  • Updates feed into an after round Impact Report for transparency and learning.

  • Projects with strong follow-up may get priority in future rounds.

9. Benefits for Regional Partners

  • Funding support for impactful local projects.

  • Recognition as a DeSci Round Ops Partner in reports, website, and social media.

  • Direct link to Ethereum public goods narrative and global DeSci ecosystem.

  • Opportunities for co-funding and cross-ecosystem collaborations.

10. Tentative Timeline

Phase Dates (TBD)
Partner Onboarding Week 1–3
Nomination Period Week 3–6
Review & Selection Week 6–7
Public Round Week 7–9
Funding Distribution Week 10-14
Impact Following Quarterly for 1 year

DeSci Round Ops Team

Swift Evo, co-founder of DeSci Asia
maria.freitas, founder of DeSci Reviews
Scott Itepu, borderlescience
Brenda, founder of DeSci LATAM
Anshuman, working group member, DeSci Asia

Twitter
https://x.com/desci_round_ops
Telegram

4 Likes
2

Draft Scorecard

2025/08/18 - Version 0.1.1

By Owocki

Prepared for Swiftevo re: “DeSci - Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking report”

(vibe-researched-and-written by an LLM using this prompt, iterated on, + edited for accuracy quality and legibility by owocki himself.)

Proposal Comprehension

TITLE
DeSci - Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking report.

AUTHOR
Swiftevo.

URL
https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/desci-gitcoin-3-0-sensemaking-report/22994

TLDR

You argue the legacy science stack paywalls knowledge and misprices essential labor like peer review. You propose a DeSci localism approach that funds grassroots projects through regional partners, with nomination, local and external review, QF or similar distribution, and ongoing impact tracking. You position Gitcoin as uniquely suited because of prior DeSci rounds and public goods brand.

Proposers

DeSci Round Ops Team
Swift Evo, cofounder DeSci Asia
maria.freitas, founder DeSci Reviews
Scott Itepu, borderlescience
Brenda, founder DeSci LATAM
Anshuman, working group member DeSci Asia.

THEIR_CREDENTIALS
Collectively they have operated multiple DeSci community rounds on Gitcoin since 2022 and are embedded in regional DeSci communities across Asia and LATAM.

Domain Experts

Named above. You also plan to pull in cross region reviewers from Greenpill and ReFi DAO for external checks.

Regional operators with lived context in local DeSci networks, plus ties to broader Ethereum public goods communities for external review.

Problem

Traditional academic publishing concentrates control, paywalls outputs, and leaves reviewers uncompensated, which restricts downstream innovation. DeSci aims to restore openness and community governance for research outputs, funding, and review.

Solution

Stand up a DeSci localism round. Onboard 5 to 7 regional partners who nominate 5 to 8 projects each. Use local and external review with COI declarations. Allocate via QF or comparable open matching, reserve some budget for ops and partners, and run quarterly follow ups for one year to produce an impact report.

Risks

  1. Execution complexity. Multi region onboarding, reviewer management, and COI handling increase coordination cost.
  2. Funding uncertainty. External cofunders are listed as targets, not commitments.
  3. Platform dependency. You reference QF and possibly COCM or Garden. If tooling is not available on your target dates, distribution could slip.
  4. Measurement ambiguity. The layered framework is promising, but concrete indicators and data sources need to be locked before kickoff to avoid vanity metrics.
  5. Timeline pressure. With October near, partner onboarding and reviewer selection need firm dates to de risk slippage.
  6. 2022 era thinking - QF and team are from 2022. Should prioris be updated for 2025?

Outside Funding

You plan to seek cofunding from Allo Capital, Greenpill Network, Celo, Glo Dollar, and allied DeSci communities. These read as prospects rather than confirmed. Past DeSci rounds on Gitcoin have mobilized sizable matching pools, but no specific GG24 sensemaking budget or secured cofunders are listed here.

Why Gitcoin?

Gitcoin has brand permission in public goods, a donor base already familiar with DeSci rounds, and battle tested practices for open review and matching. Prior DeSci rounds on Gitcoin 2022 to 2025 show there is an existing funnel of projects and donors to build on.

Owockis scorecard

# Criterion Score(0-2) Notes
1 Problem Focus – Clearly frames a real problem, one that is a priority, avoids solutionism 2 Clear articulation of paywalls, misaligned incentives, and why open funding matters for Ethereum adjacent science.
2 Credible, High leverage, Evidence-Based Approach – Solutions are high leverage and grounded in credible research 1 I worry this round just revisits 2022 era structures. Should desci be funded with QF? probably not. is it what we know? yes.)
3 Domain Expertise – Proposal has active involvement from recognized experts 1 Team includes DeSci Asia, DeSci Reviews, DeSci LATAM operators with prior Gitcoin rounds. But doenst include founders of most successsful desci projects.
4 Co-Funding – Has financial backing beyond just Gitcoin 0 Good targets listed, none confirmed in the post; prior rounds show fundraising capability but not guarantees.
5 Fit-for-Purpose Capital Allocation Method – Methodology matches the epistemology of the domain 1 Local nomination, mixed local and external review, COI declarations, QF or comparable matching, optional retroPGF for past impact.
6 Execution Readiness – Can deliver meaningful results by October 2 Tentative timeline only. Needs firm dates, named partners, reviewer roster, and a concrete research workplan for the written report.
7 Other - general vibe check and other stuff I may have missed above 1 Aligned with Gitcoin 3.0 and Ethereum localism. Biggest gap is specificity of sensemaking deliverables and hard commitments from partners.

Score

Total Score: 8 / 14
Confidence in score: 70%

Feedback:

Major

  1. Lock commitments. List confirmed regional partners, named reviewers, and at least one external cofunding commitment with amounts and timing. Add a contingency if the platform or a partner slips.
  2. Is there a better way to fund DeSci than QF/Retro funding? Likely yes


Steel man case for/against:

For

DeSci is a public good that compounds over time. Your team has shipped multiple rounds across regions, which lowers execution risk. The localism model can surface high context projects that global filters miss, and Gitcoin’s QF infrastructure plus a layered impact model fit the domain well. If you secure one or two anchor cofunders, Gitcoin’s contribution could unlock multiples in matching and storytelling value.

Against

The proposal reads more like a round operations plan than a Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking study. Without a concrete research plan and confirmed partners, there is risk of diffused scope and missed October delivery. Multi region ops can stall without tight governance, and reliance on unconfirmed cofunders could shrink impact or force a re scope.

Rose/ Bud/Thorn

ROSE
Experienced team with prior DeSci rounds, a design that blends local knowledge and cross checks, and a reasonable approach to post round impact tracking that could improve accountability across DeSci.

THORN
Lack of crisp sensemaking deliverables and firm external commitments. Lack of original thinking on allocation methodology. The October timeline needs concrete gates to avoid slippage.

BUD
If you publish an open methods appendix, secure one anchor cofunding partner, and pilot a small retroPGF slice tied to verified outcomes, this could model a repeatable DeSci localism playbook for Gitcoin 3.0.

Feedback

Did I miss anything or get anything wrong? I welcome corrections and specifics in the comments.

Research Notes

Not fully clear what the specific GG24 sensemaking report will contain beyond operating a localism style round. Budget lines and amounts are not detailed in the post. External cofunders are aspirational at time of writing. Named team members and participation structure are clear. Prior Gitcoin DeSci round history and counts are summarized in the post. Follow up. secure partner MoUs, reviewer list and COI policy, an outline for the written report, and at least one confirmed cofunding agreement.

1 Like
3

Thank you @Swiftevo - bullish on all things DeSci. Reviewed using my steward scorecard — evaluated manually for consistency, alignment with GG24 criteria, and grounded in the Gitcoin 3.0 vision.

:white_check_mark: Submission Compliance

  • Structure is complete: problem, impact, domain design, success metrics, and Gitcoin fit
  • Past rounds and team experience clearly outlined
  • Mechanism, partner involvement, and stewardship team are present
  • Fundraising is aspirational (no current commitments)
  • Verdict: Compliant

:bar_chart: Scorecard Evaluation

Total Score: 10 / 16

Criteria Score Notes
Problem Clarity 2 Clear articulation of systemic failures in legacy science publishing; strong Ethereum values alignment
Sensemaking Approach 1 Strong ecosystem experience; interviews or external mapping not cited explicitly
Gitcoin Fit 2 Gitcoin is the only credible host for this — especially with track record across GR15 to GG23
Fundraising Plan 1 Future-facing partners listed (Glo, Celo, Allo), but no confirmed co-funding yet
Capital Allocation Design 1 Regional nominations + QF + retro is promising; governance and decision rights need more clarity
Domain Expertise 2 Named steward team includes Asia, LATAM, and global DeSci organizers with real track record
Clarity & Completeness 1 Could benefit from simpler framing; dense sections + repeat copy detract from core message
Gitcoin Support Required 0 Will need Gitcoin ops support (matching infra, COCM, etc) but doesn’t spell out what’s required

:pushpin: Feedback for Improvement

Strengths:

  • Strong team with history of executing multiple DeSci rounds
  • Deep alignment with Gitcoin values: decentralization, local knowledge, Ethereum public goods
  • Ambitious but thoughtful structure — local nomination, reviewer neutrality, QF and RPGF split

Risks to address:

  • No confirmed co-funders yet
  • COCM + Garden + RPGF mechanisms all need operational support; consider narrowing scope
  • Decision-making framework is vague — who gets final say on grantee selection and fund distribution?

Suggestions:

  • Naming 2+ regional partners and reviewers before voting closes
  • Publish a draft of your nomination rubric or eligibility filters

:yellow_circle: Conditional Support

I would support this domain if:

  • A clear eligibility + governance rubric is published
  • Round ops roles (review, final selection, infra lead) are made explicit

IMO this is a high-alignment domain that could grow into a flagship Ethereum-localism experiment in the next cycle.

1 Like