Excited to support this proposal – and to read the report too! (@eleventh19 let me know if you need any help regarding Protocol Labs grantmaking)
One idea, just to put it out there in response to @ale.k’s point, might be to fund the work from the treasury but then create an artifact (eg on Metalabel or Zora) that can be sold for a modest amount, with proceeds going back to the treasury. No need to act on this – it’s just a thought!
I love this idea Carl! I’m in favour of this proposal, and I love the idea of pulling in Metalabel or Zora.
Please also let me know if I can be of help at all during the process of this initiative @eleventh19. I have worked with Mashal Waqar on the UNICEF case study and it’s so exciting to see that she will also be involved in this! She’s amazing.
This is a great proposal and the team here is incredibly strong. Looking forward to your learnings and echo’ing Mathilda please let me know if I can be of ANY help. Great project!
This proposal has passed a snapshot vote has passed with ~100% approval rate.
Metrics:
1291 unique votes
~6M GTC tokens cast.
Thank you to all the voters for participating in our governance!
Excited to see the results of this one come to fruition. It will be helpful for the ecosystem to consume the result.
After numerous conversations I’ve had across the dao this week it feels like this work could have been really valuable - and would still be. I know the proposal passed but that this didnt happen, and wondering where that decision/reasoning was communicated?
I’d love to revisit a revised, tightened scope as this in the context of the market sizing/segmentation work we’ve been discussing @Viriya @nategosselin @0xZakk @meglister @azeem
i think this is still a really good blueprint for how wed approach a more robust study but for now we can also use this to inform some quick market research exercises that could help justify this larger one
there is SUCH a need for this and im wondering if we could even share the cost if we partnered with other orgs with grants programs
Hi @alexalombardo. To clarify, the revised proposal both passed and the related research is happening! We are close to finalizing the second milestone in terms of capturing the formal interviews and are on track to publish the final report by mid-September (hopefully by Schelling Point).
We experienced some delays with getting connected to the desired number of grant programs relative to the initial timeline. We’re going to have a catch up with @Sov tomorrow (Thu Aug 17) to fill him in on our progress.
By the end of this week we will have spoken to 21 people across 15 different organizations.
I’ll make sure to drop a link to the report as it’s finalized
Do we have this report ready by any chance?
I’m really interested in reading it. In terms on proposal deadlines we’re good to start reading it, right?
Hi @ocandocrypto. We got another round of feedback / clarifications from grant program operators so we’re adding that in and doing a final edit this week. Our goal is to have the report out no later than Monday. I’ll come back and post here as soon as it’s ready to share
@eleventh19 would love to keep up to date with this and read the final report! I’m recently started working on creating treasury knowledge resources, with a current focus on disbursement. Just in case it was useful to collaborate at any point now or in the future I’d love to chat!
Treasury resources can be found on Twitter: W3Association
Welcome to reach out anytime via discord: lovegrovegeorge or twitter: lovegrovegeo
@ocandocrypto @lovegrovegeorge and anyone else checking on this thread, the report finally got published!
This is a link to the google doc: State of Web3 Grants Report - PUBLIC - Google Docs
Mashal and I both posted on Twitter accounts so please feel free to amply if you’re so inclined - Mashal’s post, my post.
We’re interested in doing more research, both in terms of covering more programs an in terms of delving deeper into specific questions (outlined at the end of the report). Let us know if there’s enough interest for another GCP!
On my way to start reading. Thank you guys.
Happy to connect to scope out any future collaboration, will DM on discord
Report is worth a read! Great info in there, keen to jump on a call when you’re free!
I just finished reading the report, really great work ! I really like how thorough and comprehensive it is
Some of the more nuanced points that emerged could only have been obtained through painstaking, original research. I’m summarising some of my favorite points for the benefit of other readers;
Solana is the only convertible grants program, where a portion of future investment money a project raises goes back to solana -
Polygon experimented with a voucher system where rather than direct cash you get free smart contract audits, developer resources, etc -
NEAR gave grants in their native token and many grantees didn’t sell for emotional reasons or hoping for an upshot, with the end result that many resources got squandered -
Ethereum foundations team is unique in their focus on digging deeper into projects that might not look great in their application but have some core insight which is unearthed through questioning -
Protocol Labs’ system got much better after they told teams to get a review committee in place BEFORE launching a RFP
I also like the meta point on how splintering grants program reduce overall impact and the discussion on grant farmers (the authors found one project that got a grant from optimism 3 months after completing the same grant from compund). @0xZakk , I think parts of this report definitely make the case for Gitcoins project registry to be used as a standard across the ecosystem!
What I’d particularly like to see going ahead is case studies on the L2 ecosystem like zora, optimism, arbitrum, etc. This is particularly relevant for us as we’ve launched PGN and will eventually need some sort of grants program to attract builders.
Finally, attaching a screenshot of my favorite part in the report looking at types of grant programs and what they require
Very curious why there is no mention of the Graph protocol, despite them having a lot of data and reports online https://storage.thegraph.com/2023-grants-report.pdf.
Let’s say there is a potential for a V2.
The replication of the data analysis is close to impossible since the grants directory is not updated.
Nothing mentioned about the lifecycle of the funded and not funded projects. Where the case of the Graph could be valuable to investigate.
From my perspective, there is an objective lack of focus on grants where developers have an actual chance to obtain funding. The data focuses on grants as aggregates and not projects.
Good Summary:
https://nftnow.com/news/researchers-analyze-over-1-billion-in-web3-grants-heres-what-they-found/
Well simply because we don’t need the graph, respectfully said of course, we have way enough of data analyst(s), and much repository to play with, as necessary.
The replication of the data is easily done, via each project API’s, there is not a single entity that does not have it, so, have fun! So, either you use the graph with API’s, this is the same as doing it, yourself…
User = aggregator in any ways, as well as a projection of a project, is still, a commune of different variables vis-a-vis other users, not sure to understand your point here, if you can be more specific, I’ll be more than happy to reply to you!
