[GCP-014] Gitcoin 🤝 MetaFest

[shawn16400]

@peth

Does the project help Gitcoin to deliver on the stated season priorities?

I tried checking what these are but couldn’t find any info…

Yes! thanks and I will add that to the v2 of this tool. For now, this is likely our best representation of 13-5-5.

@peth

Got 2 but would argue for 4 - “Stewards not engaged but the project appears to address relevant problem Gitcoin should solve”.
This problem being greenpillin more people & onboarding more projects to Allo.
I’m also technically a delegate myself, tho one of the worst ones . Hopefully more relevant delegates support soon.

Love the pushback, this criteria is arguably the most dynamic. The more stewards that pile on support for the project, the higher this one goes.

@peth

I’d say the main success criteria are these:

• Percentage of newcomers in attendance & greenpilled (at least 10-20%)
• Number of newcomers that join regen projects &/or DAOs (at least half)
• Number of people that start projects & Gitcoin grants
• All workshops recorded & turned into a course on starting projects, including starting a grant on Gitcoin

Thoughts?

I like SMART goals in relation to success criteria - so some of these could be sharpened up. But more more specific to Gitcoin, as a steward with a chunk of owned GTC, I would be looking for the direct Gitcoin impact. I am all for growing the ecosystem (first and second points) but with GTC near an all time low, I am looking for refined Gitcoin impact. Your third bullet point comes closest to this, but I would ask - for $10K how many new grantees could we deliver?

@peth

Damn - sorry about that!
Here’s the link & will add to the proposal itself: https://metafest.wtf

This might actually be the metric we score highest on,

yes, that changes this part of the assessment

@peth

Does this project contribute to meaningful and relevant Innovation?

• For starters, I’d say the ability to organize a 3 day conference for $35k is an innovation.

Agree, this is an innovation and you deserve credit in this area for sure. In the bear, lets live frugally and when the bull comes around again, we continue to live frugally. I personally think Gitcoin needs to be 110% focused on our top three priorities of Allo launch and success, Grants program and Passport and the DAO has to relentlessly eliminate all other distractions.

@peth

One metric I found a bit weird was “Does the project help Gitcoin achieve sustainability via mission-relevant income or cost saving?” with 1) being “project has no or low income potential” - there is no “project offers cost savings” option… Here I’d say we offer a very cheap alternative to shelling out $270k for Schelling Point.

This is exceptionally important. If this were positioned to replace an existing effort (and that cost would go away) I would agree it has cost savings potential. But 1) This looks like incremental spending and 2) I think applying the same criteria to any future Shelling Point under a GCP proposal would be 100% appropriate.

@peth

Also, is the assessment independent or the criteria?

This is 100% independent. Both the assessment and the criteria. Just me, N=1.
For context, posting GCP request is a newer process for Gitcoin and as we have done about 10-12 of these so far, my own past assessments were not consistently as rigorous as they should have been. In good times, I might be ok with that, but as a GTC token holder - I think we need to be more choiceful.

I developed this semi-qualitative independent proposal assessment (a reapplication of portfolio management tool) and I intend to use going forward. Anyone is encouraged to use, fork, or help me improve.

if this goes to vote, I will redo the assessment.

Thank you @peth for the proposal, your response to this project, and all that you do in the web3 space. People who have passion like you are what make me bullish on web3.