I absolutely agree with all of this. Especially two things.
Consistent wallet address (and if not that, then at least keep a history of the changes to a projectâs wallet from inception). I think itâs important to one day be able to go back in time and figure out whatâs been happening on chain. Forensic evidence as it were.
One grant, one project, per team. This is equally important to me. If GitCoin doesnât do this, then my only recourse is to make TrueBlocks ten projects which I donât want to do.
Probably best if grantees are only in one round for the Beta rounds just given it would be confusing for donors to see the same grant in different rounds and have to donate more than once if they want to support a project. Ideally in the not too distant future we implement âjet fuel QFâ which enables people to donate to a project in more than one round at the same time. This would make it a better experience for grantees and donors in future rounds.
This question is a bit more complicated. Personally I think each project should stand on its own based on the eligibility criteria. We shouldnât punish individuals for being part of more than one project nor should we create incentives for individuals to hide themselves from view if they are part of more than one project. And as you pointed out its hard to be clear about who is involved in a project in an anon space.
This also ties into the discussion of the same organization having more than one proposal for their different initiatives. To me this really comes down to if these individual initiatives are real and how the funds are actually allocated. We shouldnât punish a DAO or other organizations or individuals for doing more than one thing. We also shouldnât create incentives that force organizations to splinter or split up in order to qualify for funding. The missing piece here IMO is having improved reporting, updating and verification. Iâm hopeful that a community of impact certificates and attestation providers will grow in the year ahead and this will dramatically increase transparency and accountability.
My two cents on this one is that we shouldnât allow grantees to promise anything in return for donations in their proposal or elsewhere in their community outreach. This may get complicated as people provide retroactive air drops or other things to their community members but it would be best if these sort of thing was genuinely retroactive. Its great when Gitcoin is a community organizing tool and a way for grantees to find their community and continue to engage with them. The goal needs to be to ensure donations are not coming in to receive a reward and to protect the voting with your wallet component of QF, people shouldnât be selling votes.
The key part of this question to me is the word sale. Gitcoin grants rounds shouldnât be used to promote an NFT drop or some other form of a sale. That being said NFTs are a broad category of web3 tools used as impact certificates, attestations, carbon offset and renewable energy certificates etc. The distinction should be if the NFT is being used as a utility or as part of the community engagement strategy for a project with goals related to the round they are applying for vs if the NFT is the whole project in and of itself. A portion of funding from an NFT sale should not be considered as adequate to be seen as being tied to the the objectives of the round.
Matching caps are critical to distribution of funds to a wider spectrum of grantees. Perhaps there should be some guidelines for matching caps based on the size of the round. A lower cap the larger the round. We have done this somewhat organically but it could be a bit more structured moving forward to provide some suggestions to round operators. I would also potentially support a maximum match for projects across the whole program quarterly for projects if a project is allowed to be in multiple rounds.
I think the answer to this question very much depends on the goals of the individual round. In general I think we should be very careful about not allowing sybil attacks or scams into the rounds but the question of âqualityâ is pretty subjective and in a sense is why we are harnessing the âwisdom of the crowdâ. Whatâs important is that the eligibility criteria is very clear and continues to be refined for each round as edge cases come forward. As a general rule I usually suggest to round operators that when considering a potential grantee we ask ourselves how we would feel if they raised the most money in the round. If that would seem problematic then it should tell us something about how to refine the eligibility criteria and why.
I would love to see more community members getting involved in the Grant Round Operators Guild (the GR OGs) and weighing in on the decisions for the rounds eligibility. Many of these decisions are hard to capture in broad strokes policies and requires talking about the specifics of a project in detail with a group. I believe that having a healthy community of grants round operators will be critical for the growth and impact of our grants programs as well as independent rounds run on the Grants Stack.
Love seeing this conversations happening in public with so much community input.
Big should out to the OâDays @connor and @koday and all the other Gitizenâs from the community for all the thought and time you have put into this discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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 thatâs gone into making this happen.
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 âImpact Onboardingâ strategies, Iâm 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 âlist 5 impactful projects you used funding for since the last round.â
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?
There is a challenge around DEI here. It is caught in a scarcity trap. We donât 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?
This is a good opportunity for DEI projects and their communities to become more active in the forums. I donât think itâs easy for most people who arenât personally affected by DEI challenges to actively work to improve this situation. Itâs 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 itâs too late. Iâve been pushing the LatAm community to do this, but havenât seen much participation so I have to push harder.
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). Thereâs 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 canât include links but if you search for âLaunching a Web3 Charity #10, Kagumo High School!â then youâll see
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.
Ok so this was my first time applying for the beta round for one ! My project got rejected probably I wasnât 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 donât know why the projected was rejected even before the round even after putting so much effort in to it
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.
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 â1DAO/org=1 applicationâ 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 DAOsâ 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.
Iâd also like to express my dissatisfaction at the inability of reviewers to correctly implement â1DAO/org=1 applicationâ rule. I personally do not agree with that rule, but if it is a rule then Iâd expect it to be evenly applied across all orgs
But thanks for the call-out that we werenât clear in this forum post about the way the DEI bonus would work.
Weâre 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 youâre up for it!
that states that we should have disregarded the previous email stating we were deniedâŠ
from Gitcoin???