[GCP 017] Gitcoin Citizens Retroactive Funding Round

📜 Proposals
, ,
25

I will be voting in favor of this.

Some thoughts on this specific proposal:

  1. Glad to see us doubling down on RPGF.
  2. The overhead on this specific proposal is high relative to the amount going to the Citizens. We should target no more than 10% overhead. IMO we should solve this either by allocating more to citizens or by becoming more efficient in how the rounds are run.
  3. We know from this post that there are at least four components to designing a voting strategy:
  • Impact Vector: Identifying the specfic type of impact you want to amplify over time.
  • Distribution Curve: Determining how flat or skewed the eventual distribution of tokens to projects should be.
  • Eligibility Criteria: Establishing parameters to determine which projects qualify.
  • Award Function: Creating a formula or rubric to equate impact with profit.

It’d be great to have Gitcoin governance more involved in deciding these things.

Some strategic thoughts on RPGF + Gitcoin Citizens in the future:

  1. Gitcoin workstreams total $700k/mo ( $2.1m/quarter)… Doing a $50k citizens round/quarter feels like a paltry amount compared to the amount done via workstreams. We should double down on Citizen rounds then we should double down again . Then double down again.
    • Over time I hope to see an upward spiral emerge where Gitcion invests more into its outter community, and the outward community invests more into gitcoin, and the cycle repeats.
    • The opposite of the above upward spiral is a downward spiral where Gitcoin does not invest in its outer community, so the only peopple who are left are bad/net negative, and the cycle repeats. We should avoid this at all costs.
    • A community that I think is doing it right is Optimism. They have created a talent magnet and great brand for themselves with their continual RPGF rounds.
  2. When GitcoinDAO launched in May 2021, it had a treasury of 50m. I’d love to see at least 10% of this treasury given out to citizens or other people who are not in workstreams via RPGF + Gitcoin Citizens Rounds. I may submit a proposal to earmark these funds in this way in the near future.
    • What would it look like if the primary way Gitcoin was funded was with Retroactive Funding + with Citizens rounds? (as opposed to the current GovernorBravo setup, which is dominated by workstreams and insiders). This is admittedly a provocative question. But our decentralization is progressive - I do not believe that making this transition is a good idea at this time, but I do believe that in the next 3-7 years using Gitcoin to fund Gitcoin should be a goal. I believe that this should be done not by lowering the compensation of insiders, but by elevating outsiders to the level of insiders (both in context level, accountability level, and funding levels).
  3. I’d like to see multiple different citizens rounds happening. We should diversify round operators away from Kris/Umar and to a competing marketplace of diff Citizen Round Operators. Within this competing marketplace, some things Id like to see:
    • We should be building a strong expertise in running Grants programs. One of the memes coming out of 2024 planning I’ve seen is that Grants = Growth. How can the Gitcoin ecosystem use the Citizens rounds to experiment with ways to use Grants for Growth? How can we create more expertise in how to use Grants + document that in a way that bleeds into how Round Operators coming from @sejalrekhan’s round manager training program run rounds in our ecosystem. How can we build a knowledgebase of best practices? A roadmap for what experiments our customers want to see? How can we learn in public?
    • As Gitcoin evolves from QF to many mechanisms, I’d love to see citizens rounds run with a badgeholder type experiment like optimism does. Or with Conviction Voting. Or with SeaGrants. We should be experimenting with different ways to Fund What Matters at Gitcoin.
    • Over time, the citizens rounds should form a spectrum of (1) tried and true mechansims and (2) experimental mechanisms. From cradle to unicorn. For each different type of designing an impact voting strategy as @carlcervone lays out in this piece? Would it be possible to eventually traverse the entire design space using a pluralism of designs for Citizen rounds?
10 Likes