GG19 Eth Infra Round Review: Reflections

🧙 🧙‍♀️ Ideas and Open Discussion
1

Co-authors : @connor + @sejalrekhan

This post is purely a reflection of the operational aspects of the last round and is intended solely for the purpose of learning in public. We aim to share our learnings to foster continuous improvement and collective learning.

The Eth Infra round, initially launched in GR-14, was established to direct funding towards Ethereum core developers and projects directly impacting the protocol. As the round began to evolve and expand, however, it gradually shifted away from its primary objective of exclusively funding projects that advance Ethereum. This led to the Eth Infra round in GG19 reverting to its original approach, transitioning from an open application process to a curated format.

GG19 Eth Infra round involved the inclusion of teams and individuals who support essential aspects of the Ethereum network, emphasizing projects that principally contribute to the success and sustainability of Ethereum. Although the exclusion of an open application process might have caused disappointment for some, it was observed that the Eth Infra round had expanded beyond its initial purpose over time. The decision to adopt a more proactive stance in curation and concentrate on genuine infrastructure and core development efforts was made with the intention of revitalizing the enthusiasm and momentum associated with this round.

Before the Round

In this round, we effectively identified appropriate projects for inclusion based on prior round participation and the new criteria. However, our goal to work closely with a (hypothetical) Ethereum Round Council (EIRC) - a group of community representatives aiding in curation - faced challenges. Engaging people in decision-making proved difficult, partly due to irregular meeting schedules among other factors. As a result, the curation for this round was primarily carried out by our internal team, a practice we aim to avoid in the future to prevent centralization. Historical data also helped to inform the selection process, specifically from prior QF round results and applications, as well as other grant programs. Consequently, the majority of the projects included were same grantees, with very few new projects in the round.

Looking forward to the next round, we intend to have community representatives who are willing and able to assist with curation, possessing both the necessary knowledge and the time commitment. Aim to have a diverse group to ensure neutrality in the selection process. It would be optimal to begin this preparation and selection process at least two months prior to the scheduled round.

During the Round

Managing program rounds across different chains can be challenging. EthInfra, for instance, was deployed on Polygon, making it somewhat distinct from the other two rounds. Streamlining all rounds to operate on the same chain would likely simplify the process for both donors and grantees.

The appeal form for review wasn’t adequately disseminated, indicating a need for better communication regarding the round’s structure and the invitation process.

Implementation

  • This was our first round on Polygon. The deployment process was executed smoothly, though there were some complications with donations (specifically, issues with USDC transactions). The details regarding payouts are still being finalized.

  • Communication with invited grantees was primarily via email. However, not all recipients opened these emails, despite follow-up attempts. It appears that many grantees may not have seen these communications.

  • We sent an "Appeals & Requests for Consideration” form to projects that were not selected. We decided against publicizing this form widely to avoid turning the round into a de facto open application process with additional steps and it ended up being not circulated well. The form can be accessed here: https://forms.gle/2Mwqvbj1YrWVqc6q9.

  • Invite/denial email copies sent to past infra grantees: Infra GG19 Emails

  • Made a general plan for a council of curators to begin this round and grow in the future, but ended up hard to meaningfully engage the people we wanted to help Ethereum Round Council (EIRC)

Outcomes and Statistics

Data - source: gitcoin.co/grants-data

1600Ă—751 89.9 KB
1600Ă—952 170 KB

6 Likes
2

Thanks for the details here @sejalrekhan. I am looking forward to us using these lessons learned as a team to form up our strategy for GG20 and beyond.

2 Likes
3

This is awesome! Love seeing this analysis and thoughtful reflection. Way to go @sejalrekhan and @connor

3 Likes
4

Hi! Some quick feedback: I believe this process would benefit from additional transparency on the selection criteria. Specifically I think the ecosystem would benefit if your internal team would provide the reason they rejected qualified projects.

I represent the project Ethscriptions, which was one of the best performing infra projects last round. Our project’s goal is to improve Ethereum scalability by reducing gas consumption and thereby enabling more transactions to be in a block. Our approach has saved hundreds of thousands of wallets millions in gas. We also made significant progress since last round.

However this round when we applied we were rejected without any explanation. In fact we didn’t receive notice of the rejection; our application went unanswered until the round ended.

I believe Ethscriptions enthusiastically checks the boxes required for this round. Obviously the internal team disagreed and I accept this decision. However I do not think Ethscriptions is so far off the mark that it doesn’t deserve some kind of explanation so that we can improve our application for next time.

I also believe that any other projects that match Ethscriptions’s profile should receive an explanation as well.

Thank you!

2 Likes
5

Did you file the appeal when you received word that your application was rejected?

Normally you will receive an email :e-mail: with details about why the application was rejected and be able to submit a rebuttal in the form of an appeal which is something we have had to do before.

Sometimes the emails may not be sent or end up :arrow_up: in a different email inbox so it is worth double checking in case you missed it.

A scoring rubric would be helpful for this process.

If you can’t get an answer via email you can also contact the grants team directly on X by dropping them a message. That has helped us in the past to get answers during an active round.

Can we see some analytics on this ?

We would love to see the total gas :fuelpump: costs saved.

Seeing as how Ethscriptions has a niche audience have you considered launching your own grants round using the Grants Stack manager ?

The round management team does a ton of work that goes well above & beyond their call of duty. So a lot of respect goes out to anyone working behind the accounts that make this program possible.

1 Like