Devconnect/Zuzalu/Istanbul Takeaways for Gitcoin

Hi everyone,

I wanted to post a few takeaways from my time at DevConnect/Zuzalu that were relevant to Gitcoin. You may have seen on twitter that I posted some takeaways yesterday already. In this post, I want to focus on, and expand upon those that are most relevant to Gitcoin.

In this post, I will try to seperate the observations (what I saw in Istanbul) and my takeaways (the editorialized version of what I think it means/what we should do about it). This will allow us to separate out the action on-the-ground-happenings from Kevin’s opinions about them.

I want to warn you that some of this post is strikingly honest about the state of Gitcoin in market. I’ve long thought that founders are too glowing about their projects in their public communications, and the market could use more constructive criticism/learning in public about their projects. And that would collapse some of the asymmetries between project insiders/outsiders. Did I go too far and hurt some feelings? Maybe. Will people read this and get defensive? Maybe. Will it turn into a blame game? I hope not. Will we learn if we don’t honestly look at ourselves? Definitely not. To me, the benefits of looking honestly at ourselves + learning outweigh the drawbacks. Over time, the market will evolve towards the live players, the projects that can learn from their missteps and evolve new tactics/strategies as fast as the ecosystem around them is evolving. Crypto evolves fast, so it is incumbent upon us to evolve with it.

Here we go.

0. DAOStar grants standard


DAOStar has dropped a standard for grants + for impact tracking. this will make it much easier to collaborate across projects if adopted! read the standard here =>

My takeaway

We should consider building upon this + identifying opportunities it provides (like a common app, where you can apply to many grants projects all at once).

1. RetroPGF


Led by optimism RPGF, the retroactive public goods funding narrative has taken the ecosystem by storm. At Devconnect, every public goods panel I was on seemed to slant towards RPGF, Vitalik himself talked about RPGF in a few of his talks. Building upon his support for it which started in 2021. Additionally, there were many projects doing retroactive public goods funding.

  1. Optimism
  2. ENS
  3. Purple DAO
  4. Celo
  5. Starknet

My takeaway

The market has evolved, and Quadratic Funding isn’t the hot new thing anymore.

Unfortunately our attempts to be involved in RetroPGF at Gitcoin has come with some false starts. In early/mid 2022, Scott and I saw it coming and negotiated with Optimisms founding team to have Gitcoin Grants tech at the heart of Optimism RPGF. As that agreement got passed along to implementation, it was not prioritized/resourced appropriately (or something else went wrong, depending on who you ask) and Gitcoin lost the deal. Optimism broke up with us in Q4 2022 and decided to go it’s own way technology-wise. This cost us $40m/yr-$60m/yr in GMV.

That doesn’t mean that we’re totally out of the game. In order to increase our impact, it may be valuable to re-capture this mindshare. But that could only be done with a concerted/aligned effort between groups building product, doing user education, market research, and marketing.

Luckily Quadratic Funding/Gitcoin Grants and RetroPGF are not wholly incompatible. Especially as Gitcoin evolves in its 3 transitions, one of which is to move from “we are a tool for QF” to “Gitcoin is a swiss army knife, that supports many funding mechanisms/methodologies” there is an opportunity to provide tooling for projects that wish to do Retroactive Public Goods Funding.

The focus on RPGF can also be an opportunity for Gitcoin Grants. i was a part of some interesting discussions map out range of grants lifecycle. Basically what are the primitives that a project can use to raise when it just starts? how about when it matures into a unicorn? how do these relate to each other? what is the cradle-to-grave (or cradle-to-unicorn) funding stack? what are the primitives that can be shared across this spectrum? how do they interrelate & co-evolve together? This research could be the foundation of a roadmap for Gitcoin Grants Stack.

I wrote a brief about this here.

2. New Market Leaders


According to publicly available data, [1] Gitcoin is now #3 (as measured by GMV) in the public goods funding market for Ethereum behind Optimism and Protocol Guild.

This data also shows that there are public goods funding tools for other DAOs (like Hedgey) that hold significant positions in the “public goods funding for any EVM based community” narrative.

My takeaway

The market has shifted since 2021 when Gitcoin was the only game in town.

As Gitcoin spent ~24 months rewriting its core products (and adjacent things like governance, legal) to be decentralized/modular, other projects caught up and captured both the narrative and the funding.

Does it matter? According to the philosophy of practical pluralism we should be Ethereum aligned and in it for the mission, so we should welcome other players in the market + embrace their impact too…

From the angle of “Is Gitcoin a billion $$$$ impact opportunity?” or “how does Gitcoin pay it’s bills?”, I think it matters much more. If Gitcoin is not a market leader and the market has power law returns for whomever is the market leader (as many markets do), I think it becomes harder to justify Gitcoin’s $800k/mo spend - and we should consider refactoring Gitcoin to make it a market leader again.

Some might dismiss this and say “Kevin, someone said we are the most og/best. So who cares?”. To which my retort is “ok show me the data.”.

How can we make Gitcoin a market leader again? A few ways we could go about it.

  1. Recapture the number 1 position by GMV.
  2. Give up on being a crowdfunding/public goods funding market leader + refocus on Passport as our billion $$$ impact opportunity.
  3. Redefine our crowdfunding/public goods funding market definition to be something other than “highest by GMV”. Perhaps if we carve out our own niche + become the “#1 democratic funding tool out there” as measured by number contributions. *

*Here are multiple spectrums in the PGF/crowdfunding mechanism design space:

  1. democratic vs expert-led
  2. for seed projects vs mature projects
  3. retroactive vs proactive
  4. investors expect a return or not
  5. ux/data intensive vs more simplistic

Which of them should we pursue?

Whatever market definition we choose to pursue, I think it should be sufficiently large + have a sufficiently credible go to market path that it justifies our spend in pursuit of the market.

I think there will be some pain in the form of re-organizations, renewal of strategy, and smart tactical bets until it is figured out. My feeling is that we should build a culture that charges the hill instead of one that prefers to continue the status quo.

Not be overly doomy tho. Gitcoin does have more momentum with Grants and Passport adoption than it’s ever had since it became a DAO. There are stronger leaders here than I’ve seen it’s history. Gitcoin is protopian (it gets better every quarter). My hope is that by looking realistically where the market has shifted, we can make it even more protopian.

3. Impact Attestations


There is a lot of energy at Zuzalu around impact attestations and Hypercerts. People are excited about using them in RetroPGF to connect impact that has occured with financial rewards that could one day occur (either through RPGF or otheerwise)

Vitalik himself called impact tracking as something to focus on on his recent Greenpill episode

My takeaway

I think this will be a big thing in 2024. Standards like EAS HyperCerts will allow projects to attest to the impact of one another, and over time as a web of trust evolves, we’ll be able to more easily tell the difference between projects larping as public goods and actual public goods.

There is an opportunity here to build web of trusts on top of Allo/Grants Stack Registry. The more we do that, the more that creates a network effect/moat around Gitcoins tools - making them exponentially more valuable the more grants are on the registry + the more impact attestations are on the grants.

4. Portland PDX dao QF Round


HodlOn (PDX DAO member) and I had an interesting chat during Devconnect about how the PDXDAO QF Round (which I YOLOed at the PDX event in September) accelerated some of their governance conversations.

From my convo with him

it forced a lot of hard questions about our governance to actually have money.

  • it forced a convo about governance. and what we were going to be when we grew up.
  • diff ppl have diff ideas about what pdx dao is coming from that event.
  • it convoluted the already happening convo that was forming around governance.
  • its not resolved. person X talked to person Y for hours about this. a lot of these ideas would be easy to resolve if it wasnt for money.
  • this convo is either going to harden us or we are going to fork into multiple entities

My takeaway

It is interesting for me to see that having money can be an accelerant not only for progress, but also for some of the hard convos that only happen when you have money to collectively manage in a treasury. I think its something to be more mindful about in the future if we do Gitcoin Grants work with projects that don’t have a hardened governance structure in the future.

5. Passport Friction


While at Devconnect, I heard a lot of feedback about Passport being too full of friction for end users. Some of the friction included:

  1. Why can’t you just pull my on-chain history and see i’m sybil resistent from there?
  2. Each new identity is like a quest for me to go on. Can’t you prioritize service X (where service X is some foreign social network I’ve never herad of)

My takeaway

I think that continuing to focus on less friction-ful experiences for Passport could be a really good idea. And making sure that for each customer Passport has, there is enough services that users already have an intrinsic reputation built up on, enabled on Passport, can reduce friction.

Of course, there is a narrow line that we’re walking here. Reducing end user friction while increasing cost of forgery for attackers. We’ve not yet found a silver bullet.

In the meantime, things like Cluster Mapping can help close the gap.

I know that @Jeremy & co are thinking about these things as well.

6. Dampened Enthusiasm for PGN


I had a handful of conversations about PGN at DevConnect. “Why can’t I bridge DAI?” “Why can’t I make a SAFE?” “Whats the USP?”.

My takeaway

PGN has a handful of ux hurdles to solve before it gets to a baseline of usability.

And even then, I’m not sure what it’s USP is in a crowded L2 ecosystem.

Is costs Gitcoin several tens of thousand dollars per month to run.

According to the dune dashboards here and here it’s not being used much outside of Gitcoin.

I feel like it’s time to shit or get off the pot with PGN. If it’s not going to take off, why not spin it down and focus resources on the products that are winning?


Really great insights! I also got the read at devconnect that there is demand for public goods funding that moves beyond our own incestous crypto communities & goes out into changing the real world around us

I’m not sure how this can be implemented at gitcoin. My sense is that if we can become the point of entry for people to directly buy attestations of impact in the world rather than trusting intermediary organisations participating in grant rounds, it could be a novel change to how social impact gets funded


i think that the goal for the next 12-18 months could be crypto/evm based public goods/impact. once that market has matured/been saturated is the correct time to focus on outside-EVM-ecosystem impact imo (perhaps by then more primitives will have been built where crypto communities can attest to/create impact outside the EVM ecosystem).


I think you’re right in terms of channeling funding towards our own EVM ecosystem for a year or two more before primitives are ready to take out into the world, while still encouraging projects on the vanguard of making this happen

Following up on the emphasis you noticed towards retroactive funding systems, I do wonder what a system would look like where donors fund impact attestations/hypercerts rather than organizations. It might nonetheless remain a popularity contest, but there would be stricter eligiblity requirements such as actually creating some impact, reporting on the cost for creating that impact and not being able to get significantly more than that in a round, etc.

As this ecosystem develops over time impact attestations might become a better criterion for entry into a gitcoin round rather than the current one of being in existence for at least 3 months :thinking:

1 Like

This is a really interesting idea Devansh! Just wanted to flag for @Sov and @monkeyflower :slight_smile:


Thanks for putting this together @owocki. I’ll respond in-line and also articulate some of my takeaways.

You know my personal stance on this :slight_smile: If PGN went to a DAO vote, I’m sure it would fail. General consensus is that we haven’t resourced this adequately enough to compete in a crowded market. In fact, it’s hindering potential profitable partnerships atm.

I was speaking to @sophia about this – I believe that the only way to MAYBE make this successful is have OP support it’s technical barriers and champion it’s narrative while bolstering engineering support for the project. Probs not gonna happen so…

It begs the question: How do projects spin down at the DAO beyond it being willed by vibe checks at CSDO? Would love to see some kind of milestone based success metrics to determine where to place our bets across the board.

I was also here for this convo and it was really interesting to hear his gripes with receiving money. It followed this theme that I’ve been sensing into around educating communities who are using our tech. I think we have an immense opportunity to document and share our learnings in a way that prepares people both running a grants round and receiving grants funds. If taken seriously enough, this kind of work could help position us as experts in web3 grants that communities turn to for best in class information and bespoke consultation…and ultimately bolster learnings and improve UX for Grants Stack and bolster usage for Allo.

On RetroPGF / Retroactive Funding

As @owocki stated it seems that there’s a space in market to provide tooling for retroactive funding grants programs. Putting this on @nategosselin and @meglister’s radar.

We ran an IRL round at Schelling Point that afaik would mirror the current RPGF round manager customer flow and it was…convoluted. The marketing team has documented the process and we will be doing a proper retro on this (today actually!) to share with the product teams. I don’t want to derail existing roadmaps (especially since direct grants is seeing so much traction in market) but maybe it’s something for the Allo team to consider creating a light build or plugin this season to enable us to capture interest.

Our team has put together a quick sales page for RPGF on Grants Stack and am planning to talk to product about how we want to proceed there.

I have more thoughts on the grants program, grants stack enablement and impact reporting (and how they all tie in together) that I will post here by EOW :slight_smile:

Would love to see some public thoughts from @CoachJonathan on events and also governance when he has the time.


Thank you for your support.

1 Like

Looking forward to hearing your feedback/more thoughts @Viriya ! thanks for this summary!

Excited about the theme you’re sensing on funding learnings – I’m all in on whatever makes us an expert in grans.


Thanks for the insights @owocki Always good to hear from the ‘boots on the ground’ perspective.

Lets ‘charge the hill’ as you proposed.

‘Perhaps if we carve out our own niche + become the “#1 democratic funding tool out there” as measured by number contributions. *’ :+1:t4:

Am I missing something? Or wouldn’t this objective sync with PGN nicely?

Also wondered if anybody had any thoughts on the new US policy that government employees (I believe both state and federal) are prohibited from using blockchains that originate in an ‘adversarial’ jurisdiction. What are the ramifications here (wondering out loud)?

1 Like


According to publicly available data, [1] Gitcoin is now #3 (as measured by GMV) in the public goods funding market for Ethereum behind Optimism and Protocol Guild.

This data also shows that there are public goods funding tools for other DAOs (like Hedgey) that hold significant positions in the “public goods funding for any EVM based community” narrative.

This is a really good, data-based observation and reality check for us! Thanks for raising it, and I agree with your points about the market becoming much more crowded, and Gitcoin no longer being the sole or top player. That said, I may be (crazy) biased, but I think that we can regain the top spot (by $ distributed) in the next 12 months – with a LOT of focus, hard work, and perhaps some resets on our strategy/org.

Why do I believe we can recapture the top position by GMV?

  • Looking at the data, Ethereum Foundation has distributed $22M in pgf this year, Optimism at $15m, and Protocol Guild at $10m. Gitcoin has distributed $5m in pgf.
  • Our approach to growth is different than many of the above – slower to grow out of the gate, but more scalable. EF and Optimism draw from their own (very large!) treasuries to distribute funds – which gives them a “fast start” but caps their growth beyond what they are able to devote from their own funds.
  • We scale by working with many top grants programs to capture their pgf and distribute using our tooling. We believe that working across many grants programs and their funds, rather than doing our own fundraising or distributing our own treasury, will be much more scalable – particularly as grants programs and Web3 grows.
  • We also believe that this gives us insight into how to make grants programs maximally effective. By working closely with many top grants programs, we can aggregate pain points and learnings across them and work to solve them.

How is it winnable? (WIP – I know we have lots of threads going here)

  • Working with large grants programs in EVM to deeply understand their needs and embed our solutions in their communities
  • Single minded focus on making grants/public goods funding a effective, ROI-based growth lever that every web3 ecosystem adopts (not a charity donation)
  • Solve for what makes grants programs successful today. Many of the grants programs we talk to identify two pain points: 1- workflow and manual management of grants 2- finding the right grantees for their needs. We have efforts focused on both of these.
  • Anticipate what grants programs need tomorrow. We think transparency and accountability and impact measurement will be key to scaling and measuring efficacy. The mechanism design space you mention will likely be a key tactic here!
  • We need to get faster, more creative, and more coordinated at executing on all of the above, and that perhaps involves some org or strategy resets! I’d look forward to moving from a “Grants Stack” bubble into a “Grants at Gitcoin” mindset and have really appreciated conversations with @Sov and @Viriya on this lately.

Agreed on all points @meglister LFG


ok one week late :upside_down_face: but here are the rest of my thoughts

Now that we’ve had some time to digest and articulate our experiences at DevConnect, some of the things here aren’t necessarily new points and some have even been brought up in other threads but I wanted to lay them out to articulate some nuanced thoughts.

RPGF & Funding Impact

  • One of the major cruxes of funding innovation is actually knowing where the money is going. Round managers and their communities want to have confidence that their funding is going to the highest value levers to support growth goals.
  • I believe that this is why there is so much fire under the RPGF narrative as well. We’re actually funding impact…and we’re doing it retroactively with confidence.
  • But there is a large gap that incurs by only funding projects retroactively. This is something that people in the PG space are pretty aware of and consider it the space that Gitcoin plays in wrt the PG funding landscape: Gitcoin funds and seeds ideas so that they can test and grow* (more on this later)
  • How do ideas get seeded and grow in a way that builders feel safe to innovate while putting food on the table while also supporting confident decision making by grantors?
  • This surfaces a need for better impact reporting to support the funding of returning grantees for proactive funding
    • I think that Gitcoin shouldn’t necessarily resource to solve this but should be working in lockstep with others who are thinking about this and integrating their tech into our stack. (which I think we’re exploring with hypercerts)
    • I do believe that our inability to clearly articulate impact has impacted the amount of funding we are securing for our program. I have a whole tangent of thoughts around the purpose of the program and how it ladders into the purpose of Gitcoin and how all of that is amorphous and unclear atm but I will create another document about this.

Evolving the grants program

Ok so back to the “we fund and seed ideas so that they can test and grow” – Gitcoin’s historical position in the grants landscape is tied to this. The grantee journey goes something like:

Seed funding (Gitcoin) → other programs/funding ops → RPGF (OP)

*This is actually articulated in much more detail in @ccerv1’s post here and one could debate on Gitcoin’s role in each of the stages.

The tl;dr is due to the amounts we distribute to a respective project, funding from Gitcoin doesn’t carry a whole team for an entire season but, rather, typically funds new initiatives within an existing project or seed funds net new ideas. AND there should be funding at each stage of the PG builder’s journey.

Knowing this, is this where does Gitcoin Grants want to continue to play?

In a similar vein, it feels like there’s an opportunity to inject some more energy into the program. We have run 19 QF rounds. We are having a difficult time funding and keeping audiences engaged in quarterly donations. My proposition is to not completely abandon QF but instead continue to experiment, document and share best practices for QF and different funding mechanisms. This positions us as experts in grants and creates a space and market for Allo to play in.

Gitcoin as a grants program incubator

  • If we can get really good at educating and consulting projects serious about building programs to fund innovation in their ecosystems, this would be a HUGE unlock for us. People often look to us for this information and we should be considering their desire for consultation as a signal of market needs.
  • How might this take shape?
  • Learning & reporting: Retros retros retros
    • We need to learn from our initiatives and publish those learnings. We are operating a double-sided marketplace (sometimes 3 if we’re running democratic funding rounds) – we can glean insights from all audiences and codify/publish best practices. This knowledgebase would allow us to consult on the nuances faced by new customers.
  • Synthesis of learnings and knowledge sharing at scale
    • We are already testing a round operator training program this season. There’s an opportunity to support new round operators with best practices through different educational materials and experiences to support grants programs at scale.
    • Also, as an aside, I love the kinds of content OP is creating to have more transparency for the mechanics of their program:
  • Working with existing round operators both inside the Gitcoin ecosystem and beyond to knowledge share, learn from each other and co-create public goods that detail best practices.

Hey friends, this is Andrej from Deep Work (
It seems like there’s an opportunity to review the successful parts of the previous grant rounds, learn from them, and significantly improve the following ones. You all gathered a lot of experience over the last years and I’d love to help you synthesize what the following grant rounds could look like in a series of online sessions.

I’ve facilitated similar sessions with the GitCoin MMM team before (among many others in web3 like MakerDAO, Maple, Obol, Ethereum Foundation, NEAR, Celo etc.) and the feedback was that it created much more clarity and actionable insights into what was working and what could be improved.

(If you’re interested in learning more about our design-thinking approach to web3-native organization, feel free to browse through our playbook: Introduction to Organizational Design - Organizational Design Playbook)

And if anyone else is interested in getting involved in or following along with the review or design sessions, send me a DM!


I love this idea. We have always said that this is all an experiment and that is true. Gitcoin is a fascinating study in decision making, crowdfunding and coordination. The grants program team has always tried to iterate on what we have learned from one round to the next. It would be great to formalize that more with more intention behind. Perhaps we even formally change Gitcoin DAO to Gitcoin Labs? Wild idea.

Passport and Grants are distinct entities and perhaps we should take a step back and consider how we define GMV for each product and the program.

Some thoughts on the role of the program

One big thing to reflect on is the importance of the cadence of the rounds we run. The idea of seasons is hardwired into all of us and Gitcoin has been as regular as flowers returning in the spring in web3. Can you believe it has sustained for 5 years now?!? Just being part of 2 of those years myself it has been incredible to see thousands and thousands of people show up round after round as well as new people consistently arriving.

It’s much easier to ride a wave then it is to create waves. We create a big wave that carries many projects as well as the new rounds that are entering the space. In a sense that activated community is core component of what Gitcoin is offering to a potential grantee or program manager. All rounds run during our quarterly events benefit from each other and from Gitcoin itself.

Gitcoin has been a vitally important Schelling Point for connecting community members of so many different communities. As we innovate and explore lets stay grounded in that seasonal cadence that has resonated across our communities around the world and remember the negative network effects that could result from changing that cadence (not too mention others filling the space and us sliding to a position of less relevance).

Totally agree with this. RPGF is great and rounds like our Citizens round using QF to make funding decisions is a great addition. Would love to see us continue to innovate around how to make that decision making process easier for people running direct grants programs. Attestations and other forms of certificates have the potential to be a huge unlock for this kind of decentralized decision making which has implications for round managers making eligibility decisions as well as direct grants programs making allocation decisions directly.

Lets absolutely continue to facilitate more retro rounds and do more collaborative learning and building in public related to it.

I think this is the key thing. QF struck a chord for me and for many I talk to about it with because its fixing things that are wrong with existing grants programs and other forms of funding (especially for public goods).

Ultimately Gitcoin should be a leader in solving funding problems for vitally important open source tech and public goods but that doesn’t mean Grants Stack and Passport can’t measure their place in the market independent of Gitcoin. Our value as a House of Brands is a mixture of product market fit and GMV of each of these brands. If Gitcoin is actually a Lab incubating innovative protocols and tools that potentially changes how we define its success.

That being said at the end of the day GMV will decided by how well we solve problems for people in the market. If I didn’t make it clear enough I’m trying to highlight how our quarterly cadence plays a substantial role in our value proposition. :upside_down_face:


Super important conversation/perspectives.
I can add for consideration

  1. The Community aspect at Gitcoin coupled with it’s identity independent of a chain brings in waves of new projects and people to public goods every season. It’s like everybody brings a friend along to Gitcoin. This needs to be nurtured

  2. The cadence of every 3 months coupled with impact tracking creates huge waves - This needs to be amplified

Super support this.

Absolutely - Lets just make it “our” hill.
( rather than reacting to the market )

1 Like

It’s taken me a while to get this in the queue of to do’s, but here’s my response to this very well thought out post. Thank you @owocki for your (always) honest words and guidelines.

From where I stand, I’m noticing a few things (esp with GG19 just concluded):

  • I’d love to understand more about donor fatigue and where that’s hitting us exactly. I have thoughts here but I don’t have data to back it up (yet).

  • We aren’t the only funding program anymore (as it’s been aptly pointed out). So what does this mean for grantee fatigue? With all the other sources of funding out there, where does GG fit in for the grantees themselves? Is Gitcoin still the place they come to for ongoing funding? For seed funding? With a decrease in our matching pool sizes, is this informing their decisions?

  • We know that what’s at the heart of our donor engagement are grantees. So it’s important to nurture this piece and keep it in the front of our minds.

  • We are also now seeing this “heroes journey” of grantees graduating to funders, and then eventually to round operators (in the case of 1inch/Mask Network). This is something to 100% celebrate (busy with a strategy here btw), but through that GG loses either 1) a high profile grantee or 2) high profile funder. Not saying this is a bad thing at all (it’s actually amazing), but how do we ensure we keep that revolving door healthy/attractive?

What about having set dates for the rounds instead. Say, for instance, it’s April, July and November (for example or whatever the cadence will be). Now everyone knows that those are the months that they can expect to be apart of Gitcoin Grants. We all know that a QF grants round is exhausting for a lot of grantees. Not to mention creating their application with sometimes only a few weeks (or one week’s) notice can potentially take a lot of out people. So having clear dates set in stone already in the calendar might help drum up more excitement over time and set clear expectations for all involved.

Ok, next up:

I am 100% in favour of this. Esp around sharing our knowledge and learnings on a public platform. I think we can do a lot to increasingly improve on how we support our round operators. And transparency in our failures and successes are key here. Curious to see how we can use this as a strong foundation for comms in the future. More data, data, data.

HUGELY bullish on seeing more impact attestations go live within our own program. I also know how hard it is to measure impact, so that’s where RPGF comes in so strong. I would be super interested to see how more of this can be baked into GG alongside QF.

And I believe it’s important for transparency for matching pool funders as well so that they can see the impact of their own funding.