Loves me a spicy take. 
I’m here for it.
Since I’m in agreement with having Gitcoin’s projects throwing their hats in the ring for funding, I’m going to argue against myself here to share my thoughts so that others can share things I may be missing.
1. Does this go against our eligibility requirements and code of conduct for Gitcoin’s Grants program?
Where? Show me the receipts. The GG20 OSS eligibility doesn’t explicitly state that internal projects can’t run. With the exception of “Funding Caps: Projects with significant external funding may be reconsidered to ensure equitable distribution of resources.” I don’t see anything specifically outlined in our woefully outdated CoC/Knowledge base either. “IINCLUSIVE - Anyone could make a grant and apply to The Gitcoin Building Gitcoin Ecosystem | Side Round to GR10. However, participation policy was ratified by Gitcoin Holdings Inc., the sole contributor to the matching funds.”
2. What if internal Gitcoin projects influence the application process?
If our application process allows for people to approve projects based on collusion then our system is broken, it’s another reason why (IMO) we’re leveraging tools like Checker to improve the process, no? Integrity is key, and every application must be judged on its merit alone, irrespective of its origin. As one wise captain once noted, “The first duty of every officer is to the truth.”
3. Are Gitcoin projects taking funding away from more deserving external projects?
The protocol is neutral, the people are not. What people choose to do with their funds is their own accord. Nothing is being distributed unfairly if donors decide to allocate some of their funding to a Gitcoin-produced product. This is simply done through a different mechanism than asking for an optional donation at check-out within our own product. Isn’t this way more transparent?
4. Could this set a precedent that harms our credibility?
This is a valid concern. If we allow internal projects to apply for funding, we must ensure it doesn’t lead others to perceive Gitcoin as self-serving. How do we mitigate this? Could improved public documentation and more transparent decision-making processes assure the community that all decisions are made with integrity?
5. What impact might this have on the community’s trust?
Fair. If there’s even a hint that Gitcoin favors its own projects, we could erode the trust we’ve built. How can we ensure that our actions bolster community trust rather than diminish it? Doesn’t this tie into our transparency and note #2? (ok I realize I’m arguing against my own arguement at this point).
What else did I miss? We’re leveraging other grant programs to receive funding, why not our own? 