[GG21 Community Round Proposal] ᴘʟᴀɴᴇᴛᴀʀʏ ᴄᴏᴜɴᴄɪʟ 🕊️

[mars]

@MathildaDV

Are you planning on contacting these individuals to be advisors?

Of course. I did it already.

@MathildaDV

IMHO I would personally not go about it this way, and I don’t believe it’s best practice.

Of course. I was determined to meet the deadline (now extended) and the process of reaching out / communication with the ideal would-be advisors could have been better.

@MathildaDV

I would advise that you at least list the funding mechanisms you are considering and why.

Of course. From the GG21 Community Round Eligibility Criteria:

@MathildaDV

If you would like to experiment with another funding mechanism during GG21 outside of Quadratic Funding or with QF itself, you may include this in your proposal for the Gitcoin team to first review in the proposal phase. This could include: Direct Grants, Conviction Voting, MACI QF, Tunable QF . For Grants Stack resources and more information, please visit the Grants Stack Resource Hub . All proposed mechanisms must run on top of Allo Protocol.

@MathildaDV

All payouts to be conducted via Allo, and not manually.

Definitely need to meet the criteria, that’s why the funding mechanism needs to be compatible with the Allo Protocol, that’s non-negotiable. WIth that said, some experiments that we would like to conduct as part of the round.

Experiment

@mars

Winners decide

Based on my observation (loyal community, network, good shillketing execution) I assume that winners of the QF are reliable, trustworthy, with established trust and reputation. Because of that trustworthines and reputation I’m suggesting creating a new model of fund distribution: top 20% of the projects distribute 20% of the allocated funds:

• 5% to projects that are good.
• 5% to projects that are good AND received little
• 5% to frens
• 5% to anyone you want, including keep to yourself

It can be cumulative, so if there is project that is good, and received little, run by a fren, and in fact this is my free choice = all the 20% of the distribution can go to a single project.

(this is currently proof of concept, there is no formal definition of what “good” or “little” or “fren” means, using social contract and common sense)

Experiment

@mars

We intend to introduce minimal funding cut-off to ensure funds are prioritised wisely.

For example, we can pick an arbitrary number of $420 as the minimal funding cut-off, anything less will be returned to the pool and redistributed among those who pass the threshold.

This is to avoid noticeable effort of reporting on the round for smaller grantees.

Experiment

ᴘʟᴀɴᴇᴛᴀʀʏ ᴄᴏᴜɴᴄɪʟ team and advisors to direct grant a portion of the funds.

All of the three (thrall) experiments can run in parallel and are aligned with QF while addressing the shortcomings and enhancing the participant experience.

---

@MathildaDV

How exactly are you measuring impact? Through which methods/metrics?

@mars

Measuring the full impact. Current. Future. Potential.
End to end. Including externalities and cobenefits.

A bit of history. Previously I was working on BaseX.com but for a variety of reasons decided to pivot as Impact Evaluation Foundation. From the opening blog post:

My personal vision for IEF is to measure / report / evaluate / quantify full cost of the product goods services, especially in the context of climate and metacrisis.

Measuring the true cost, redefining value: one of the most impactful pressure points to realign civilisational prorioties. It’s both political and technical, I think there is political will but no robust technology exists yet…

The question about the exact specifics / methods / metrics. In the simplest terms: self-evaluation combined with fact-checking (data gathering) on the ground, see objective 2 from this proposal:

Develop a comprehensive training program for impact evaluators to ensure they have the necessary skills and knowledge.

At the same time the technology behind IEF is not ready, at this stage it is proposal-ware, while Karma GAP is already operational. I think it is sensible to stick with Karma GAP until better tooling is developed elsewhere. We can also use “best of both worlds” approach: using Karma GAP platform while accounting for impact using a variety of metrics, including: Seven generation sustainability - Wikipedia

Impact evaluation is a massive problem waiting to be solved and regen / ReFi / Web3 communities are leading the field. We are determined to use the best tools for the job and accomodate feedback.

@MathildaDV

I am unable to accept your application due to the fact that it’s incomplete. If you’re able to adjust it according to my feedback please do so by Tuesday July 16th.

Weekend in nature, hardly any signal, returned , replying to your feedback / questions / comments now, happy to provide any other responses as needed.