[Discussion & Feedback Request] GG18 Round Eligibility

Hi there! Could someone provide some idea about what this ‘significant funding’ could mean? I understand that the previous number was USD 500K. But this wording is slightly vague - would this mean $1M, $5M of funding, or anything less/more?

Need help on GG18 application
Currently getting ready to apply for GG18, but stuck here at github verification.

The project is not officially launched yet. The plan is to go live on the test network in mid-August, and officially launch the main network and open source code at the end of August. There are a few questions here:
1, if I participate in the GG18 application and verify my github account, will the community see the code after verification? We don’t think it’s appropriate to open the code to the community at this stage;
2, in order to apply for GG18, we support the code to be open to Gitcoin only and review our code, of course if 1 issue and will not be open to the community, there is no such problem.
3、If it has to be open to the community after verification, can it not be verified. Just set gitcoin in github so that it can also be reviewed.

It is not reasonable to open the source code if the project is not yet online. Hopefully this will solve my problem here.

Thank you :pray:
Looking forward to reply

1 Like

Thanks, I was able to successfully verify GitHub and apply to the grant. Everything works as it should now :slight_smile:

1 Like

Some comments / feedback about Climate Solutions Round Eligibility

OK, makes sense.

I think it is too specific:

  • help reduce GHGs
  • core infrastructure for web3

Here are some climate solutions that do not fit in the definition above:

  • Awareness
  • Education
  • Community / movement / network building
  • Climate adaptation
  • Climate mitigation

For example - protecting a village in Tuvalu by building a sea wall - definitely a climate solution but it does NOT reduce GHGs and it is NOT core infrastructure for web3. If the same village was protected by mangrove forest to prevent erosion - now one could argue that it will reduce GHGs.

General feedback

I think Gitcoin can expand beyond Web3 native communities.

I think Gitcoin has brand, reputation, track record, almost $100m distributed.

I spoke face-2-face during EthCC week in Paris with some people affiliated with Gitcoin, posting here on the forum for additional visibility.

:one: Accepting payment cards / PayPal / Venmo

Most people have less than 5, it is good for sybil-attack mitigation. Allowing people to pay with TradFi methods and automagically using them as passport stamp.

Gitcoin offering smooth experience, oboarding people into blockchain without them even knowing. So timely, so possible, especially with account abstraction.

:two: Open Philanthropy and regranting. Receiving $20-50-100m from them and increasing the matching bonus.

“More money to distribute that worthy projects” - it can solve their problem of distributing money. Gitcoin and blockchain has transparency by default and the MRV (measuring, reporting, verification) part is getting better.

These examples could fit well under web3 community and education Core Round if they’re able to adapt to some form of web3 integration. Easy example of this is issuing POAPs for events or using samples like Green Pill or Refi DAO.

I would argue that we need to onboard more of those communities to web3 so they can use web3 tools for transparency, community building and reporting impact. There’s more resources available outside of web3 than what is currently being offered in the industry. On the flipside, accessing web3 grant funding is much easier than securing grants from governments and private businesses.

Hi - can anyone offer insight as to how the incoming grant proposals for OSS & Eth Infra are processed? Is there a catalogue for all incoming grants? I guess now there is a transaction hash for submitted grants. But does that hash easily associate to the title of the grant and the submitter?

I guess what I’m curious about, is if there’s logged traceability and also some kind of accountability as to who evaluates/ reviews/ reads those grants?

thank you

1 Like

Agreed. Gitcoin could potentially expand beyond Web3 native communities.

Have, myself, been in discussion with Nonlinear.org for several months. And just prior to EthCC had the chance to start a QF conversation with them. As well as several other international communities who are Web 2.0 but, nonetheless, quite interested in QF.

1 Like

Good points.

But even then, a climate project that is using Web3 tools is not approved to climate round.

Climate is a beast, multidimensional, interdisciplinary. Not just reduction of GHGs, not just core infrastructure for Web3. I think it would be better if acceptance definition was more inclusive.

A simple example: “integrating Web3 infrastructure”

(you don’t need to build the infra, you can build on top of it, that’s the whole point)

1 Like

Hi @PaigeDAO! Was just wondering if there was any outcome on your post? We’re also running into the same issue. By providing open source we’ll be giving access to what we’ve spent the last year building without releasing it first. If open source is required, would it be possible to get the guidelines on what would be needed for it to classify as open source?



Hi and also @koday (tagging you Kieran so this doesn’t get lost); No, there was no outcome in the sense that I did not receive any response or comment regarding the topic I raised about Open Source.
However, I did write [this article](Open Source Software - Big Tech's New Trough? — FrontierDAO) in order to better articulate some thoughts and pull at some threads. Feedback and discussion welcomed.
Thank you

1 Like

Is it possible to request clarification on how this is implemented with references to a few cases where contentious projects were accepted for meeting the criteria and contentious projects that were rejected for not meeting the criteria

Hi all!

Just wondering if there was any update on the open source for ETH infra? We have our grant application ready to submit, but we are hesitant to release our code as someone might be able to bring our product to market before us which would wipe our competitive advantage. If we have to do open source for ETH infra would we be able to get some guidelines on what would be required for it to classify as open source?


My project was rejected from the round so one could think that I’m “jaded” but I was voicing the the same thing even before rejection so I think I’m able to remain objective.

Posted on my blog: Rules of navigating the consensual reality

River Cleanup got my attention:

It looks good. And they have meme-able name. And they did something. And they put the effort into the application. Nothing against River Cleanup, it’s more about the rules and my attitude towards respecting the rules and making rules better.

Q: Please explain how your project meets the round-specific eligibility criteria.
A: We work on climate solutions around the world focusing on rivers with tangible impact.

Neither GHG reduction.
Neither core Web3 infra.

I like the idea of onboarding Web2 into Web3, I like the idea of Web2.5 and using payment cards / PayPal / Wenmo as a stamp in the passport and I like the work of River Cleanup. I just prefer rules to be clear, less ambigous and applied fairly across the board.

Hi there! Thanks for being critical about our work and the link to the grant round. I’m Arno, the COO at River Cleanup and I also wrote the grant application. I’ve been working in the environmental field for many years now and there is no doubt that plastic pollution and the climate crisis are linked.

The relationship is multifaceted. Plastic production is resource-intensive and emits a significant amount of greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming. Furthermore, as plastics break down, they can release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Cleaning up plastic, especially preventing it from entering the environment in the first place, can help mitigate some of these impacts.

Here are some credible research studies and reports that shed light on the connection between plastic pollution and the climate crisis:

  1. “The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet” by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): This report provides an exhaustive examination of the lifecycle emissions of plastics, from production to disposal, and its climate implications.

  2. “Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet” also by CIEL: This more in-depth report delves further into how the entire lifecycle of plastic exacerbates the climate crisis.

  3. “Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal” published in Palgrave Communications: This study discusses how continued plastic production at current rates can lead to increased environmental issues, including exacerbation of the climate crisis due to its lifecycle emissions.

  4. “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made” published in Science Advances: This research provides insights into the accumulative generation of plastic waste and its implications, including how it contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

  5. “Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic” published in Nature: This research doesn’t focus solely on climate, but it showcases the alarming rate of plastic accumulation in marine environments. The indirect implications for the climate are related to the breakdown of these plastics and the potential greenhouse gas emissions.

  6. Reports by the World Economic Forum: They have multiple reports on plastics and the environment, some of which touch upon the impact on climate change due to the energy-intensive nature of plastic production.

  7. “Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution”: This report by the Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ details the growth trajectory of plastic pollution in oceans and some of the potential climate-related implications. This report is also the foundation of the Ripple Model, the Theory of Change of River Cleanup. I highly recommend reading the summary of this publication.

It’s essential to be aware that while cleaning up plastic from the environment can have numerous benefits, the most significant climate benefits come from reducing plastic production, consumption, and waste. A holistic approach to addressing both the plastic pollution crisis and the climate crisis would involve transitioning to a circular economy, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (which are the primary raw material for many plastics), and implementing sustainable waste management practices. All these activities are in the scope of our operations.

With regards to the link of River Cleanup and Web3. As I mentioned in the Twitter space on Tuesday, we have not yet integrated any Web3 solutions into our operations. But that’s exactly what I want to use this grant money for. We don’t have the expertise in our team to work on this integration, and the funds can help us with hiring someone who can help us with that. The applications are numerous: Token incentives, supply chain transparency, DAOs, crowdfunding, data collection… You name it. I really hope River Cleanup can make some steps in the Web3 direction in the upcoming years!

I hope my explanation will help you understand our application for this round. If you have any more questions, feel free to reach out to me :slight_smile:


Hi Mars. Thanks for being active in the forum despite being rejected from this round. I can address a few points from your application that led to three reviewers rejecting.

  • Q: How do you measure your impact?

  • A: This is meta. We are dogfooding. Our project evaluates impact through self-assessment (because it is scalable). Our objectives are now towards onboarding new partners and growing community. Biz dev. Outreach. Out initial milestone is to get initial 10 organisations to use BaseX.

This doesn’t show impact in relation to climate solutions. The evaluations section of your website shows eight evaluations, half of which are almost blank and three evaluations with comments like “meh meh meh”; “apple is okay”; and “expensive products, still using the old Lighting cable”. All of these evaluations seem to have been rushed within the same week and unclear who is evaluating and the criteria for evaluations used.

The BaseX twitter has tweeted 12 times in 2013, mostly retweets of other organizations.

Realm of Feasibility:

  • BaseX like SpaceX is making life multiplanetary, starting from the earth. We are essential part of tooling to align the incentives towards survival (and thriving) of humanity.

We were unable to correlate this based on the organization github you provided on your application. It appears very inactive for most of the year.

I also watched your demo vide a few times. It became evident that it’s still in concept stage. Also evident here: “Out initial milestone is to get initial 10 organisations to use BaseX.” You can try reaching our to other grantees to create collabs, having them adopt your platform so you ca apply for GG19 in November.

Your passion for this project is admirable. Please consider using the next few months to show more work, build more community, update on your progress. You might also consider applying for another round like Open Source Software.

1 Like

I didn’t know about this.

I wasn’t aware that plastic releases CO2 when breaking down.

I’m aware that stuff breaks down and releases CO2eq (methane).

Macro plastic breaks down into micro plastic but the GHG aspect wasn’t clear to me.

Speaking of wording - since my post is all about the wording and the rules:

  • “they can release”
  • "they do actually indeed release

(quite seriously - you do amazing job - at all times I’m operating on the level of the wording and compliance with the rules)

That’s phenomenal and much appreciated. I would also add: no activity on public facing Discord. Now I can understand why project was rejected - it appeared like a ghosttown - my entire energy was focusing on code, buidl, GitHub and it was the #GG18 that was reserved towards shlling, outreach, marketing activities (and now the opportunity is gone).

When I requested feedback via email:

Unfortunately, we do not provide individual feedback.

I remember back in the day the feedback / moderation queue was published on Notion page. Is it still in place?

Related-ish example: Moderation Log — LessWrong

There is plenty approved projects but someone could find value in browsing the rejected ones as well.


What if the community fundraise 25k for a “rejected grantees round”, Same rules as Core rounds + proof of rejection from #GG18, this could run* in parallel with the upcoming Citizen Round.


Wow @wasabi , I’m really in love with this idea. There’s definitely ways for the community to get more involved in raising and supporting projects that don’t 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 why… I like banned TED talks, I like results sensored by Google, surely there are some :gem: :gem: :gem: that didn’t 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 similar… 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 - shouldn’t be that difficult. I’m more concerned whether this idea makes sense. Current formula with QF is leaning towards “winners take all” (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 didn’t 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 ; - ) .