I am excited to see the foundations laid here to empower multiple communities and, as an extension, grantees doing valuable work across diverse causes.
The following alignment is likely implied as part of the runbooks for individual round design. I am calling it out if we want to explicitly spell out any of these design choices as part of the Partner’s Agreement necessary to qualify as a community round.
- Eligible Passport Score for matching: Should the community rounds default to the same thresholds as Core Round (e.g., Matching power will proportionally increase for scores between 15 and 25)? If not, there should be a mandatory minimum threshold for Passport Score (say, 15) for matching for a Community Round to be eligible.
- Collusion-resistant QF: Community rounds should deploy the same versions of collusion-resistant QF as the core rounds to mitigate unfair influencing of the distribution of matching funds.
- Impact Assessment: As part of the proposal, the community round should express a point-of-view on how they intend to assess grantee impact over successive rounds as part of their eligibility criteria. While the specific mechanism or tool (Hypercerts, GAP, Deresy, etc.) should be a choice of the round operator, we should encourage deliberate steps each community can take to iteratively increase the rigor of impact assessment for future grantee eligibility.
- Transparency in applying grantee eligibility: The round operator should provide clear feedback to all applicants with a short rationale on their approval or rejection.
Looking forward to seeing the evolution of community rounds!