[Discussion & Proposal] Ratify the Results of Gitcoin’s Beta Round and Formally Request the Community Multisig Holders to Payout Matching Allocations

Yes correct all direct donations go directly to the grantee wallet where they have full custody. The “Revised Total Received USD” is essentially the sum of donations that were counted for the revised matching calculations, so discounting txs < 1$, txs from non-existent/failing passport scores, and txs removed during Sybil detection.

In the first two iterations of these results, there was a lot of confusion around the “Total Received USD” amounts (when they weren’t adjusted downward after Sybil checks) not matching up logically with “contributions” and “match”, so I think it is better we can now share the revised donation sums.


That’s not what I asked though. Say I want to do my accounting. How much did we receive? Counting it in matching or not. Is the first amount correct or the 2nd?

If the 2nd is just 1st minus what you regard as sybil through some kind of calculations you believe detects sybil then specify that in the name of the column. Because it would be nice to be able to also know how much each grant received raw.

Appreciate all the effort put in by the FDD team and you @connor.

Couple Qs on the process -

Do you consider projects contributing to each others grants also as a sybil attack?

What do you infer when a donor address has interacted with other donors?

When we onboard friends and family to contribute to our grants is that considered a sybil attack?


Well you asked why the discrepancy and if the first one was wrongly calculated :slight_smile:

But yes the accounting question is a very important one, and I think you are right we could rename the columns to make this clear. Perhaps calling it “Total Donations Counted for Matching” would be better than “Revised Total Received USD”. What do you think?

I’ll also call out that the $2,055 amount you see in the first iteration is also not the raw number - this is the total donations after removing failed passport scores and donations less than $1. And then the $1,633.22 number in the final matching calc iteration is removing both the items above, plus any other transactions flagged by further Sybil analysis and defense.

I believe the real “raw” sum would be be found on the frontend grant page, so for example Rotki I see is at $2203.96.

All this said, the goal of this gov discussion/proposal, and the matching calculation sheet, is not to provide an accounting statement for projects, but rather to showcase the final matching results and what numbers were used to calculate them.

I do absolutely think the product should provide an easy way to export a csv of all donations/matches made to a project. This would be a really useful tool and something that would be best built into the application, rather than done through google sheets/forums. I believe it’s somewhere on the roadmap for Allo/Grants Stack. Perhaps some collaboration with Rotki’s tooling could help to pull and organize on chain data :slight_smile:

1 Like

yeah haven’t ran rotki on it yet to see what it says for this. Okay understood the difference between them. Would make sense to rename the column then

1 Like

Great questions - I’ll try to reply below but with the caveat that often the answer is “it depends” and that we can’t possibly check every transaction manually so some things may or may not be caught by automated analysis.

No, I would definitely not. In fact, it’s awesome to see grantees supporting one another in these rounds. In the past we have seen cases of “project sybil rings” where a cluster of projects are all donating to each other back and forth, often with additional sybil donors, but that’s a bit different.

Nothing inherently, that definitely can be very normal behavior in most cases. For this specific round, among the 20+ different tests run, I found that flagging donors interacting with other donors that ALSO shared a seed funding source, was a good combination of indicators to catch likely Sybils.

No of course not - a Sybil attack is one person creating multiple identities (don’t mean this in a patronizing way but more info here). Onboarding new people to crypto is an incredible goal and outcome of QF rounds.

However, what is hard is that we can never be 100% sure or have definitive proof some address is or isn’t a Sybil (without some enhanced biometrics or KYC requirement). We flag likely Sybils, or likely unique humans, and do our best to discourage Sybil behavior. For example if you onboard friends and family to Web3 and help them get a wallet, and then send them some Eth, which they send right back to your grant, they may all be unique humans, but it certainly looks a lot like a Sybil ring. That could also likely fall under some umbrella of “collusion” which is not allowed. So those votes would likely not count, even if in reality there was a totally unique human behind each wallet. The problem is if we gave everyone the benefit of the doubt and took your word that those 10 addresses you funded were friends and family, we’d have to do that for everyone, and any grant could spin up a bunch of wallets themselves and plausibly deny they belong to the same human. So all we can do is analyze the on-chain data, set rules and standards, and make calls to the best of our judgement.


Hi Connor,

Thanks for all the hard work you and the team behind, not an easy round for anyone, there is a lot of teaching for all peoples involved here.

Concerning Mycelia, let’s not deny that it’s a hard blow, we were ranked number 6 after the first curation, then after the second one we were number one, spotlight on us, for then in the last result being ranked 80th. We know that the Gitcoin team cannot do a 1:1 basis analysis of addresses, but we can fairly admit there is a lot to learn for us here.

If after the first and the second curation most of the addresses were not removed, and at the end in the third curation we go to hell, there is definitely a need for clarification. We admit some behaviors on our side was not respecting the rules of Gitcoin, and need to be curated, while also proving our legitimacy here in this thread by explaining how dedicated we are to connect Web3 and Gitcoin to indigenous communities, the Gitcoin Citizens reflecting that.

So now getting only 6 contributors with 14$ usd received feels off, when there is at least 13 addresses that don’t have any connections to Mycelia (no gas fees paid back, no transfer of GTC) and mostly people from the Gitcoin community (so normally with passport valid). We got the confirmation that some addresses didn’t get the passport valid, but it feels there is still a gap to fill, and all that without considering people we only pay back few gas fees (~20$) or transfer of GTC to help the passport validation (is it something prohibited in the current rules?)

Again, we are here to learn, we are not here to complain about the work done here, we know its coming from a place of full commitment for the collective best interest, Sybil resistance tools are still in progress.

We really want to see this day where it would be not possible for anyone to go against Gitcoin rules, because of the design. There is out there bad actors, new grantees, projects who tried to on-board as much people as they can — honesty is a spectrum, not a binary state. It’s not to Gitcoin to decide who is legit or not, who has good attentions, bad ones, mixed ones, it’s up to the design. And it feels it’s getting closer, but in this transition time, there is still a need for clarification, because really, being on the top and going to hell is not a feeling we wish to any legit project out there.

So thank you all for this round, it seems unlikely to have a change in the final result, the whole community is justly waiting for its matching fund. But at least, we would like a transparent answer on this decision as we are accountable for all the indigenous communities we are working with, this is really important for us.

DM are open on Telegram, or by email to uni@mycelia.xyz

Thanks all, and lets do better next time.

Closing in music : Regeneration //Nerdseq/Panharmonium/ER301/DPO/Mangrove/Erbe-Verb// - YouTube


thanks for the detailed response. This clarity will def helps us navigate future rounds better.

I think most grants acting in good faith have a legit story behind what appears as a sybil attack but at the same time i get that its really not feasible for Gitcoin to look into each to understand the context.

The current doc on whats considered a sybil attack by Gitcoin is quite broad which is where potential confusion can arise, esp for newer grants. Maybe a forum post where this can be hashed out betn the team and grants once the dust settles on this round would be nice to prevent this next time.

Have DMed you on twitter/TG @connor with some potential false positives that we would like to get clarity on before the next round.

Congrats to everyone that made this happen. Looking forward to the next roller coaster


Great work @connor ! Thank you for this. The blog post from our end will be posted early next week! Thanks for all the hard work that went into this and for the conversations here. It’s given me some great insights into the process.


I wanna step in and second others who have come out to thank @connor and team for working with the community to resolve this!


Thanks all the Gitcoin Team for your Hard Work :green_heart:


Thank you for voicing your concerns and happy to continue the discussion we’re having on Telegram. We will certainly strive to make the rules more clear going forward


Appreciate you reaching out on Telegram. We’ve definitely taken away a lot of learnings from this process and will implement them for the next round


Next quick update - the snapshot vote to ratify these results is live - thank you to everyone who helped us get to this point, and for your patience during the process. Please vote here: Snapshot


Thanks for this hardwork put in. I’d like to know if there’s a reason B<>rder/ess is not on the list.

What could be the reason?

Hi! Thanks for the immense amount of work behind this round. I speak on behalf of the Sympoiesis project (clima solutions) and am wondering if we could get more insights into the discrepancy between the first Beta Round final results announced and the latest ones. I ask that because our project went from having 13 valid contributors to now having 7 valid ones. We don’t have much info on our donors, but our entire crowdfunding campaign was done at zuzalu, which makes us believe that most people had a valid passport. We’re surprised by the big difference between results.

1 Like

This proposal has passed a snapshot vote. The final metrics are pending a snapshot bug fix, but the result of the vote is a clear passage for this proposal.


Thank you to all the voters for participating in our governance!


Hey everyone we have a long-anticipated update for you all - the 5 Core rounds have now been finalized and paid out! Thank you again for your patience throughout this entire process. Going forward it should be streamlined significantly :slight_smile:


This snapshot vote has passed with ~93% approval rate.
2931 unique votes
~10.2M GTC tokens cast.



Hey @connor thanks so much for handling the payouts and contributing to public goods. Our project Litter Token didn’t receive the Beta Round funds and we suspect it’s because we provided a Polygon gnosis safe address instead of an ETH one. Any way you can help us can find a solution here?

1 Like