Wow @wasabi , Iām really in love with this idea. Thereās definitely ways for the community to get more involved in raising and supporting projects that donāt perform so well due to lack of marketing. Many of the Beta round projects committed to donating part of their funding to the bundles, one project even committed 25%.
I would definitely love to see more of this in the ecosystem. Do you think this is something the Solarpunk Guild would like to explore.
I think these are different things? Poor performance due to lack of marketing and being rejected = different things.
I recently posted here: Feature Request: Ability to browse the round content even after it is finished
I would like to browse the projects after the round - someone put the promotional effort so let them receive the attention even after the 2 week shilling period.
I would like to browse the rejected projects too. Many reasons whyā¦ I like banned TED talks, I like results sensored by Google, surely there are some 
that didnāt pass the Gitcoin filter.
(sensored = new word = censorship on sensemaking)
About the appeals. To save the effort: $100 worth of ETH to initiate the appeal process. It will reduce the workload. It will ensure that those who appeal are serious. Maybe even allow to do some edits?
I was thinking about something similarā¦ The most successful projects in QF have aced the shilling / marketing / community (SMC) game. On the other hand, there are many great projects that are not so succesful with at SMC but doing loads of impact on the ground.
I think it would be fun / fair / beneficial for every project to redistribute some % of their raised funds:
A. 10% towards great projects (no additional qualifier)
B. 10% towards great projects that were not successful in matching
Thinking about operational complexity - shouldnāt be that difficult. Iām more concerned whether this idea makes sense. Current formula with QF is leaning towards āwinners take allā (luckily there is some cap). Winners are integral parts of the community and they know which projects are A. great and which projects are B. great and didnāt not ace the SMC game.
I / We for sure need to do a better job at that SMC (shill/marketing/community).
Who are the experts? (or maybe I should just look at the QF Leader Board?) I need to invite them to do a master class for XKind during the QF module ; - ) .
The criteria for forfeiting the $100 deposit:
Since Gitcoin workers are reviewing the projects, putting the effort in, it would be beneficial for the users to see their evaluations.
Source: https://twitter.com/dmihal/status/1696412187693105347
Hello 
ā¦
Happy to add my two cents here from GG18.
Overall the user experience was an improvement on the grantees side of things.
The UI improved vastly on the platform resulting in a better user experience for donors.
Gas 
fees were optimal of course when using a L2 for transactions.
On the other hand there are also a few things to improve on from this round.
Grant application approval process needs more transparency focused on a scoring rubric that is available after the preliminary approval has been completed.
Grant council member roles are not available of who reviewed each grant during intake.
It would be great to know who is responsible for each grant request as well as having the ability to rotate council members to different categories each round to prevent biased decision making.
We suggest using a security company like GetShield who we have partnered with to detect any suspicious activity onchain or other malicious behavior.
Eliminate scams from your platform
Direct API integration for your web3-native content filter. We continuously and proactively alert malicious scam content and users on your platform.
Monitor your user base for malicious or irregular transaction history
This library detects wallets that have interacted with sanctioned protocols such as Tornado Cash. We also scan for āburner walletsā used to obfuscate illegitimate transfers and a growing range of indicators for malicious actors.
We appreciate all of the development efforts that the Gitcoin team has made since the BETA round. I have no doubts that the experience will improve throughout the year of 2023 and beyond.
Have a great week!
We were wondering 
something similarā¦
I had a hard time with the application process because sharing the code for our platform creates unwanted vulnerabilities prior to launching our MVP.
Luckily we are also heavily focused on community & education as well so we made it into the core round.
One 
thing you mentioned in the above 
comments is whether a project plans to go open source if it has not done so due to incentives post Beta release.
There is no way to tell whether what someone is building in the current moment or says they are going to build in the future. That is uncertain & cannot be the premise of which defines a piece of open source technology.
Just as in the world of public goods these metrics are measured with data collected from the past which has already been proven to make an impact.
Otherwise we get into a discussion of what comes first the chicken or the egg.
Ultimately it is fair to say that yes a project needs to be open source to qualify.
A category for Public Goods infrastructure would be lovely to see get funding in the future for those who are contributing to the greater good of the ecosystem.
I think it is something could be explored inside the Guild. Guild could serve as coordination and legitimate this as this is aligned with Solarpunk values.
I donāt know the full listed of rejected grantees in GG18, but could be a great idea to allow low performers to apply into this special round too.
This could turn out to be extremely valuable for new grantees, as we can embed educational content into the onboarding of this special round.
Honestly, I cannot say that is a good thing. I get needing to play nice with the USA, Im in the USA, but I really donāt see that as a feature.
Well thatās something you can adjust with this technology if youāre not trying to make it as restrictive.
There is no better option than researching when someone is up to anything.
Iāve seen some nice analytics dashboard (unable to find the link, it was in one of the Telegram chats) and this was one of the most funded projects: https://etherscore.network/
Link to the grant: Gitcoin | Explorer
(BTW - please make meaingful title and metatags preview when sharing links)
I tried using it and it is ALMOST EXACTLY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME as Gitcoin Passport. Actually I think Gitcoin Passport is better due to a number of Web2.0 integrations. I encourage Gitcoin to become trojan horse into crypto, UI / UX so good that normies do not know there is blockchain on the backened.
Peace of feedback that Iāve dropped for EtherScore on their Discord, applicable for Gitcoin Passport and Gitcoin and Web3.0 in general too:
Have you thought about Web2.0 or Web2.5?
Thinking about trust score / reputation / social graph for the internetā¦
WorldCoin / Proof of Humanity / Idena
uniqueness
Facebook account created in 2007 with 1.6k frens
LinkedIn with my coworkers, employers, business partners
I had a situation with Burning Man ticket, who is sending money first? I would like to leverage my social graph, establish trustā¦ I think that this idea would be good for the economy. Loads of scammers out there. If I can establish trust - that makes transactions easier.
HMMMā¦
Hopefully 
you sold your burning man ticket 
ā¦
First of all congratulations on all of the improvements made since last round and the ongoing innovation that continues to take shape around Gitcoin. Passport scoring worked flawlessly and although some legitimate people were unable to obtain a high enough score, it worked.
The climate round is in a unique position in terms of how it can be held accountable compared to other rounds whose impact is clearer from the code that they put out.
Going through the various projectsā web presence there was a lot of AI generated imagery, references to companies that have ceased operations and broken links. It was also striking how many common threads there were tying some of these projects together.
āA single grantee OR organization cannot apply to one or more core rounds with more than one grant.ā
SolarPunk is in a class of its own when it comes to imagining a utopian vision - it is hard to discern where the money people are donating is going here. If you donate to AtlantisDAO are you donating to Kula, RegenBuild, SolarPunkNomads and others, looking at their website and prior grant applications you would assume so. But each of those projects have their own grants too which may not be clear to those donating.
The waters are further muddied by the fact that Varanustra and Hydrospear/ Hydrops (owned by the founders of AtlantisDAO) appear to be beneficiaries of funding for the projects listed on their own website.
There is a halo effect when projects associate under the same ābrandā - it is a great way to vouch for eachother but should they really all have their own grant each soaking up matching? Donors have a reasonable expectation that dd has been done to ensure that the Gitcoin structure ensures fairness for all those participating.
It would be a great shame to see others suffer delays in the disbursement of funds because of this. Should it be deemed that the above mentioned organisations represent a corruption of the Gitcoin funding mechanism and participated with their own grants, these disbursements should be frozen while the rest are allowed to proceed.
Looking through the different grants application pages it is great to hear that AtlantisDAO in particular is having a great impact in the communities that it serves, creating more than 1000 jobs.
Agnostic of the specific projects mentioned here, as the grantees in Gitcoin ecosystem mature in scale and have a verifiable impact, it would be great to see the outcomes codified via impact certificates open for evaluation and linked to subsequent grant applications, like proposed here. This will help establish traceability between results and doers, especially in areas of collaboration, and donors can make informed choices accordingly.
This is still true. Notwithstanding a granteeās tenure with Gitcoin, the application process requires projects to resubmit how funds received previously have been utilized. If you have specific information that indicates otherwise or have feedback to improve the due diligence process, please contribute here for the GG19 Outline and Strategy post.
This gray area between cooperation and collusion is an extremely important topic for all distribution mechanisms that utilize quadratic funding. I am going to draw heavily from this paper, including the concept of cluster-matching that was implemented in GG18, to counter the spectrum between unintentional over-coordination and deliberate collusion.
The paper argues that āthe issues surrounding ācollusionā cannot be addressed simply by outlawing some subjectively- chosen set of ill-intentioned actions. Instead, we should design mechanisms that seek consilience by accounting for a broad spectrum of social connections (not just the ābadā ones)ā.
Accordingly, GG18 matching pool was allocated by utilizing cluster-matching QF. The signals evident in the data for biases and excessive coordination led to reductions in the match of the most suspicious projects by up to 70%, redirecting those funds to other projects. The results without and with cluster-matching are here.
A quick comparison between rounds shows that the Web3 Community and Climate Round had the most āredistributionā of funds due to cluster-match i.e., these two rounds had the most imbalances arising from pre-existing participant relationships. This highlights a greater need for tying impact with funds received making it open for public evaluation.
On the other hand, a cursory look at some of the above projects tells a different story based on the signals in the data, i.e., these projects gained a larger share of the matching pool with cluster-matching QF as a result of having a more distinct set of donors supporting these initiatives in comparison to biases observed with other grantees in Climate Round.
The signals in the data assume that there is no social centrality among grantees - this does not appear to be the case though. Perhaps this is the source of some confirmation bias here. There is little grey area on the grantee side, the links between the projects are quite clear.
Indeed, looking at the paper you referenced above then itās very clear that there is disproportional power accumulation and the goal of applying the solutions outlined have not been met. Plurality has been squelched not grown.
A few clarifications are to be made here.
Atlantis has always had just ONE grant application. We engage in collaborative efforts with various entities to pursue specific projects that align with the bigger vision of providing effective climate solutions for resilience & regeneration. This involves joint initiatives or the pooling of resources to achieve shared objectives with respect to the specific collaborative projects.
However, each of the above-mentioned entities maintain their own fundraising efforts as they are also actively working on their core and additional projects beyond their association with Atlantis. We at Atlantis strongly believe collaborations are essential in the pursuit of a regenerative future, and Atlantis embraces this approach to maximise impact. Also, note that the entities that you have mentioned have their own significant public presence on Twitter.
We appreciate your concern here, as it gives us an opportunity to clarify.
The names that you mention are legal entities that either helped set up Atlantis or are the operational/implementation arms of Atlantis. This organizational structure is required for the proper execution of initiatives on-ground in an efficient, scalable and lawful manner. It is important to note that the legal entities that you mentioned, have never initiated separate grant applications.
With regards to Mercy Corp Ventures, Atlantis has received a grant of $100K for a pilot project which involves building a Decentralized Water Network. The grant money is disbursed in four stages based on clearly defined KPIs and Deliverables. We share periodic updates about this pilot project on our social media accounts. For your information, the project is currently 3/4th complete. You can read more about it here.
We agree that Donors need to have more insight into the grantees and in fact, one of the main focus areas for Atlantis is to develop dynamic impact certificates which can attest credible work done by projects. This functionality will be tailored for climate action projects and built natively in the Atlantis Citizen App. We are happy to preview our early designs with interested community members."
Never expressed any doubt that AtlantisDAO is creating thousands of jobs or that you are having a great impact on the communities you operate in. Hopefully you can appreciate that this is not an āattackā on AtlantisDAO, the Solarpunk Guild or any of these other projects you run or are associated with.
Atlantis has always had just ONE grant application
Appreciate you being so explicit wrt pooling resources while maintaining individual grant applications - that really sums up the problem - pooling resources while maintaining individual fundraising efforts is exactly what enables this set of projects to soak up more matching funds. There is little to no separation between you. That is tantamount to having more than one grant.
Of course collaboration is part of achieving the change we all want to see in the world but not at the expense of others when it comes to funding.
With regards to Mercy Corp Ventures & the Atlantis Citizen App
The only updates I was able to find are the article you referenced which was published last year. Glad to hear there is more. Itās very exciting what you are building with the CitizensApp but Iāve only seen mockups and could not find a GitHub repository for the project.
Saw that all the people that follow you on GitHub and all of the people that you follow have about half a dozen repositories each, all of them empty, most of them created in exactly the same time frame. Hopefully this isnāt indicative of a propensity to āgamifyā reputation based systems.
Having a positive impact on the world by utilising blockchain technology is great because it affords projects the means for transparency. Especially where bounties are offered and distributed on chain, it would be very easy to provide addresses using the app.
Resources is not limited to Funds. You are nit picking my response to portray all the work we do in a misguided way, which definitely makes me question the intention of this anonymous account that was created 3 days ago. As you can see in my initial response I have highlighted that these projects you are scrutinizing all have their own identities, priorities, and outcomes exclusive from Atlantis. Their founders are vocal public figures. We have collaborated but that is after coming across each other in the Gitcoin community. Our Twitter account apart from āAI generated imagesā also shares a lot about the work we do and behind the scenes. In fact every Gitcoin round we have featured in, we have openly promoted what we do, never behind closed doors. This is because just like You, we wish to see funds going to people who do credible and urgent work.
Atlantis is one of the few in the space that have an end-to-end workflow from climate bounties to reputation and rewards being alpha tested on the ground as we speak with 800+ users. You can check out our app which is in open testing both in android and IOS, link for the playstore is [here]
We are extremely proud of our work on the citizen app. It has been developed to be a useful tool for climate projects to attest to their credible work. So, we share the same enthusiasm as you to see funds going toward impactful initiatives
Is this what has become the concern of this current conversation @panpanpan ?
I understand the point of view that is taken in retrospect. If the same structure of applications formed from this group in other grant ecosystems such as RPGF on Optimism technically it violates the rules of one application per collective of builders.
For instance if I have two project teams & separate brands for each of them only one application would be submitted. Listing the collective of individuals from each team separately in the application process helps to signal this was a group effort. Rather than crowdfunding in a grey area of collaboration or collusion.
Now there are few questions about how the flow of funding raised for the ecosystem works.
If so this could have resulted in grant manipulation to gain more of the QF matching pool and creates an unfair advantage for other projects that are ran by small teams or individuals.
If so the energy that is distributed into multiple organizations all campaigning at the same time could instead be used to laser focus on one overarching mission of the collective creating a much more significant impact.
If so then we should have much more explicit guidance for the grantees during the application process which ensures that the rules about collusion are clear enough for everyone to understand.
I must agree. It is very difficult for us to decipher each of the projects specific roles in this ecosystem map.
Are these all services that provide similar needs within the climate change category?
How does their branding signify that they are or are not associated with each other?
I know as for Atlantis DAO they have an app that has been developed regarding environmental impact initiatives.
I am not sure what stage the app is currently in so a milestone report dashboard has been developed for a few grant ecosystems to assist with this which includes Gitcoin grants.
I have had the pleasure of Beta testing the grantee accountability app from the KarmaHQ team which should be coming out very shortly in the coming weeks ahead.
A few other questions also arise as to whether this was intentional fund raising for the collective in which a cluster group application would be more fitting.
Umbrella 
brands often have multiple entities that all operate under the same roof. It seems that it would have only make sense that one application is submitted for the entire company of individuals who are involved.
We would like the communities feedback on these thoughts ā¦
As a reminder this is not an accusation or assumption about the information being presented. It is important for clarification on this matter to resolve in a way that helps teach the rest of the community an appropriate methodology to participate with others. As well as more of an understanding for those who wish to join the GTC grants stack in the future.
concern of this current conversation
Exactly. Thank you for bringing the conversation back to a more productive footing.
This account was purely created with the intention of engaging the Gitcoin community on issues of fairness so we can make the next round even better. Gitcoin benefits when its community is more than just extractive, should not be so concerned about a new account as one that is older with less engagement.
So I look forward to hearing from others if there is sufficient social separation between this subset of projects for it not to be suspect under the rule cited in my first post.
important for clarification
Projects should be happy to back up claims with on-chain data where appropriate too and avoid taking an offensive attitude, that only ensures more critical scrutiny. Hopefully this helps with that.
