[Discussion & Feedback Request] Gitcoin Program Beta Round Eligibility

[M0nkeyFl0wer]

@ccerv1

One-click proof of work / impact. For education, community, media, climate-related public goods (ie, basically anything that isn’t OSS), I’d like there to be a “proof of work” that’s accessible in one click. Ideally, it’s dated and has some basic metric for reach / engagement. A newsletter, podcast feed, Discourse forum, project dashboard all serve this function. Make it easy to prove that you or your project is doing something that matters to people.

This is a really interesting idea @ccerv1! Ideally the website link that is provided would serve as this form of proof but of course not all website adequately provide this sort of information or context. Perhaps a form with a set of leading questions that was included as part of the application process could help with this. Would be great to talk more about this idea and what it could look like in practice.

[M0nkeyFl0wer]

@koday

I completely agree Shawn - as mentioned above I plan to make a revised gov post at the end of the week that highlights the changes made to this criteria. However, the way we choose what to change or add is unclear. I’d like to strike a balance between the two ends of the spectrum - i.e. one person making that decision and going to snapshot vote for every rule change. For this round I was thinking we could host a call with the PGF team and open it to all DAO core contributors, and do smaller-scale live voting on some of the proposed changes. I’m curious to hear what your thoughts are around this topic.

This makes sense to me. One thing I would add is that we should distinguish between which rules would apply to any round in the quarterly grants program including featured rounds and which would be specific to only some sub set of rounds. One of the great things about the program now being decentralized is we can have different criteria for different rounds. We for sure want to have some general rules that apply across the board in the program, for example rules around sybil or hate speech but some other rules may not make sense for every different round.

@koday

After reflecting on this, I actually do think a single grant should be able to qualify for multiple core rounds. With the current architecture the donations in each round would count separately for matching, and if they meet the eligibility criteria of more than one round I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to pull funding from those sources. Otherwise, we are essentially asking them to conduct some game theory-esque analysis on which round is the most beneficial for them to join and that may never be a clear-cut answer.

I agree with the reasoning behind this but worry about the implementation during the Beta and what that experience will be like for donors and grantees. Really to me this makes the case for prioritizing jet fuel QF.

[jhinnbay]

This looks great! Love the updates and thank you for making all the information clear and concise. Happy to be here and thank you for all the support and everything that’s gone into making this happen.

[carlosjmelgar]

I like the eligibility, just wondering how it may apply to existing projects just now making their way to web3. As an example: As part of my “Impact Onboarding” strategies, I’m working to onboard NGOs that have a proven track record, so they can adopt the tech to gamify their efforts and report impact transparently. Does this mean they would have to be in web3 for 3 months or am I misunderstanding that?

We should try to make the reporting easy by offering a wireframe for this. Something like “list 5 impactful projects you used funding for since the last round.”

[lightsonemusic]

Hi there Pedro Marques here from RMTerra and first time here on Gitcoin , we are very interested to know more how to be elegible for a grant too. Can anyone explain me how to participate and what the steps need it?

Thank you very much, really appreciate your help!

[gospelofchange]

There is a challenge around DEI here. It is caught in a scarcity trap. We don’t prioritise it and so we continue to miss the benefits of diversity in the ecosystem. How might we shift our values enough to recognize the opportunity cost we continue to incur in the absence of more diverse participation?

[carlosjmelgar]

This is a good opportunity for DEI projects and their communities to become more active in the forums. I don’t think it’s easy for most people who aren’t personally affected by DEI challenges to actively work to improve this situation. It’s also not easy feeling underrepresented and taking the initiative to be one of the first to advocate for yourself and your community. A good solution could be to encourage a few of the more vocal leaders nudging others to express their opinions/ concerns in between rounds, even starting now for the next round instead of waiting until it’s too late. I’ve been pushing the LatAm community to do this, but haven’t seen much participation so I have to push harder.

[SimonSallstrom]

In our case, directed.dev leads to a rabbit hole of information for the visitor who is interested (eg Public Notion page, then progress updates/newsletter, or whitepaper). There’s also plenty on our Twitter and, most importantly, the vlog series that I started to document the work behind the scenes, e.g. us trying the onboarding to crypto in our pilot school in Kenya. I can’t include links but if you search for “Launching a Web3 Charity #10, Kagumo High School!” then you’ll see

[connor]

Hey all! Make sure you see the follow up post here:

[Follow-Up] Gitcoin Program Beta Round Eligibility

TLDR; The Beta Round General Eligibility Policy has been finalized. The Core Round-Specific Eligibility Policies have been finalized. This is a follow-up to this gov post which discussed the general platform and round-specific eligibility requirements for the upcoming Beta Round. There was a lot of good discussion in the comments, and some of the main talking points will be summarized below. What has changed or been added since the last gov post is clearly labeled These requirements are locked…

and feel free to still drop feedback and thoughts in that thread

[Pfed-prog]

@lefterisjp

Multiple projects per round

By this we mean I guess, an org having multiple grants for multiple of their subprojects in as many different rounds as possile. This should not be allowed. The organization behind the grant should be identified and if the same, then disallowed to have multiple grants in different rounds to maximize return.

Otherwise we are all incentivized to split our grants into smaller subprojects. I for example could split a part of rotki that deals with infra of the ethereum network and put it in infra and the rest of the opensource app in opensource. And double dip.

Others can do the same. Then it becomes a mess.

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with this statement.
I definitely understand that it makes sense in the context of Rotki.
However, personally, I collaborate loosely with multiple teams and on multiple projects. Its just so happens that its much easier to have one github org than multiple. Your proposal would take a lot more time on red-tapping and unnecessary line toeing. Honestly, sounds a bit self-righteous.

[lefterisjp]

The easiest way is not always the best way. Thanks for sharing your opinion. We will agree to disagree here.

[OffroadStudios]

Ok so this was my first time applying for the beta round for one ! My project got rejected probably I wasn’t able to explain my idea properly but I would like to emphasise it would be great if some sort of feedback is provided at the time of rejection. We don’t know why the projected was rejected even before the round even after putting so much effort in to it

[Jibz26]

Full support for your ressources, really perfect to learn new aknowledges

[Lara]

@koday

Web3 Community & Education Round Eligibility

The Web3 Community & Education Round is a new category that has not been a Gitcoin Program round in the past; however there have been similar ecosystem rounds called ‘Media’ and ‘Community’.

Reflecting on the Alpha Rounds and all the legacy “Main Round” grants, there were many great projects that couldn’t join OSS due to specific “active OSS repo” requirements. In GR12 and before we had mutually exclusive categories like “infrastructure” “dapps” and “community” - and this would be like the old community category, which included podcasts, newsletters, educational projects, journalists, and more.

As we’ve now split open-source software into its own round, we will run this Web3 Community & Education Round to focus on non-software related projects that are helping to push the Web3 space forward.

The requirements to be accepted in this round are outlined below*:

• The project must be focused on improving the Web3 ecosystem.
• Examples of projects which may fit are those that are:
  • Growing new communities
  • Providing educational resources
  • Creating content (youtube tutorials, newsletters, blog posts, podcasts, etc)
  • Protecting users by investigating bad actors
  • DAOs focused on socialization
  • Onboarding new users
  • Working on inclusion/diversity/advocacy

I think this new section is really important to create a mutual ground, culture and communication style. Proactive and projects that contributing space both to create a better ~vibe~ and inform and keep engaged can be prioritized for the round eligibility.

Thanks for sharing!

[OffroadStudios]

I would still suggest a way for the community to have visibility and a say in the eligibility process

[jengajojo]

I wanna leave some feedback here for the DEI round selection process.

I understand that this is the first time such a round is being organised and there can be nuances in selecting the right projects. The problem specially arises with ‘1DAO/org=1 application’ policy, if a DAO has several projects listed under its application, and some of those projects clearly fit under the DEI category based on other similar projects which have been selected, but then the DAOs’ application in question does not get selected because the application does not specifically fit into the DEI round, then this causes friction between reviewers and policy making.

I’d also like to express my dissatisfaction at the inability of reviewers to correctly implement ‘1DAO/org=1 application’ rule. I personally do not agree with that rule, but if it is a rule then I’d expect it to be evenly applied across all orgs

[FractalVisions]

I’m curious as to why our developers did not qualify for the DEI bonus round…

Both team members are of Black African heritage…

We hired Jerome Buka on from Bankless DAO as our main developer for our product.

https://twitter.com/0xjerome_eth

Isaac is our smart contract developer who is also part of the black community.

https://twitter.com/i_hizick

He has been receiving his education from Web3bridge in Africa…

https://twitter.com/web3bridge

We received an email that states that we should have disregarded the previous email stating we were denied…

Can we please get some clarification on how this decision was made and why we are receiving conflicting information from Gitcoin???

We would like to appeal any decision to deny these developers funding from the DEI category of the Gitcoin BETA round.

[ale.k]

hey @FractalVisions - replied in the other appeals thread!

But thanks for the call-out that we weren’t clear in this forum post about the way the DEI bonus would work.

We’re aiming to be more succinct and clear and hold more exploratory conversations about how eligibility and reviews work so that we can get full community participation in the discussion. Like I said over there - would love to talk more if you’re up for it!

[hisure2]

thanks for describing details.

donating a project for good cause is always great but what happen if a project not works well. they are allowed in other round?

[FractalVisions]

We’ve already been told to resubmit the appeal, so I’m not sure what you are talking about?