Thanks for this, excited for GG18!
I must say that each season, I struggle to fully understand the naming and criteria of these rounds.
Iād love to know a bit more about the thought process behind these rounds - sort of like how VCās have investment theses.
I know these are rounds weāve done in the past, but as our program evolves Iād love to better understand how we are thinking about how these rounds - and the names we give them - will help us achieve our goals for Gitcoin, our products, and the wider ecosystem.
Iād also love to better understand what data weāre looking at when making these calls.
Community, for example, seems quite broad - we all have communities, in fact, the word has been somewhat abused in the space. So what do we really mean by this? In that same vein, education is also something many orgs embed into their practices without it being their main goal/objective. Itās just a must for the space. Education is often just a byproduct of whatever the organization is actually trying to achieve. And orgs solely focused on education are often less successful at onboarding because newcomers dont necessarily set out wanting to learn web3, but they discover it through an organization that speaks to their passions. My concern is that some of these names feel like catchalls but actually end up not resonating with groups doing some incredible work to move the space forward, onboard users, and create vibrant communities. Would this be the home for art, music, culture related groups? If Schelling Point were to apply, would this be its home?
Furthermore, these criteria feel very unspecific, leaving much room for subjective interpretation, which opens us up to scrutiny from rejected projects. Maybe weāre intentionally vague, but then perhaps we need some kind of disclaimer (do we have this?)
Additionally, the broadness of the categories makes it confusing for grantees to know where to put their applications (as @PaigeDAO points out), and also make filtering challenging for donors looking for projects in a specific area. It means they might ignore a category that actually has projects they might be interested in.
And lastly, curious how we are thinking about the matching partners we want to attract and how we position these rounds/set the criteria.
Iād love to know more about how the PGF team is thinking about this and what insights/benchmarks are guiding our decisions.