Results Overview
The inaugural Asia Round on Gitcoin has concluded, yielding impressive results. With a matching pool of 75,000 DAI, the event attracted 3,900 donors who made 6,800 donations, collectively raising $59,470.95 in crowdfunding. This round supported a total of 89 projects, showcasing the vibrant ecosystem of initiatives in the Asian blockchain and cryptocurrency space.
TOP10 Projects In Terms of Matching
| PROJECT | CONTRIBUTIONS | CROWDFUNDED USD | MATCHED USD | TOTAL USD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETHKL | 17 | $269.60 | $4,273.68 | $4,543.28 |
| Titania Research | 82 | $13,186.83 | $4,138.18 | $17,325.01 |
| ZKP2P Fiat On Ramp | 27 | $495.84 | $4,056.15 | $4,551.98 |
| Blocktrend | 72 | $841.16 | $3,889.23 | $4,730.39 |
| DHK DAO | 57 | $375.73 | $3,795.73 | $4,171.46 |
| Nowhere Publishing | 28 | $299.79 | $3,672.98 | $3,972.76 |
| Akiya Collective | 28 | $1,151.07 | $3,252.39 | $4,403.46 |
| Web3Brand | 28 | $373.73 | $3,036.66 | $3,410.39 |
| DeSci Asia | 32 | $199.88 | $2,785.53 | $2,985.41 |
| Social Layer | 35 | $158.57 | $2,525.11 | $2,683.68 |
TOP10 Projects In Terms of Crowdfunding
| PROJECT | CONTRIBUTIONS | CROWDFUNDED USD | MATCHED USD | TOTAL USD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Titania Research | 82 | $13,186.83 | $4,138.18 | $17,325.01 |
| Hey.xyz (formerly Lenster) | 2,833 | $9,595.23 | $989.50 | $10,584.73 |
| ZKT Network | 52 | $5,313.37 | $290.94 | $5,604.31 |
| ETH Shenzhen 2024 | 47 | $2,608.49 | $95.76 | $2,704.24 |
| CoindPay | 362 | $2,514.46 | $124.25 | $2,638.71 |
| DeFiHackLabs | 98 | $2,088.63 | $928.91 | $3,017.54 |
| Nextme | 330 | $1,835.03 | $174.71 | $2,009.74 |
| Cleanify | 35 | $1,570.65 | $0.00 | $1,570.65 |
| Mugshot | 34 | $1,378.19 | $0.00 | $1,378.19 |
| GLHF for Taiwan Students | 32 | $1,188.84 | $917.14 | $2,105.98 |
Overall Results
Round Implementation
- This marks our inaugural Asia Round during the Gitcoin Community Round. Previously, GCC has hosted community rounds for global Chinese community during GG15, Beta Round, GG18, and GG19. For this season, we’ve joined forces with Pagoda and secured official support from Gitcoin. The matching pool has reached an all-time high of $75,000.
- The Asia Round is spearheaded by Hazel Hu, GCC’s team lead, and Vivian Chen, Pagoda’s co-founder. We’ve also received promotional support from Songyi Lee (Pagoda co-founder), Hal Seki (Code for Japan founder), Affe Zhang (GCC co-host and tech lead), Yuxin Zhu (GCC’s North American market lead), and lurenbian (GCC research lead).
- This Asia Round has seen impressive numbers in both project applications and participant engagement. We attribute this success to several factors:
a) Effective pre-event promotion: GCC leveraged its influence in Chinese-speaking communities, with media outlets like WuBlockchain, TechFlow, and BlockTrend helping to spread the word. Pagoda tapped into its community resources across 14 Asian countries, with members translating our round information into local languages and promoting it within their networks. This expanded our reach beyond the previous Chinese and English-only promotions.
b) On-the-ground promotion: We showcased the Asia Round at major events like EDCON and Taipei Blockchain Week. Our collaboration with EDCON officials allowed us to reach out to their demo day applicants as well. - We introduced the signal booster mechanism, previously used in Gitcoin’s Citizen Round. Nine signal boosters were selected and each allocated $500 to distribute among projects based on their preferences. They shared their allocation strategies on social media. In addition to GCC’s existing voting committee members, we also had Noah from Taiwan, Gen from Korea as well as Azeem, morph co-founder joining us. This approach is meaningful for two main reasons: 1) It introduces expert opinions, effectively balancing potential populist issues in the QF mechanism. 2)It serves as an excellent social propagation tool, increasing project in-depth visibility.
Project selection
- For project selection, we primarily followed Gitcoin’s established guidelines, while also incorporating GCC’s public goods evaluation criteria. Here’s an overview of our approach:
- Gitcoin rules checks:
- Social account verification
- Website establishment date
- GitHub activity level
- Absence of obvious bribed votes or other rule violations
- Progress updates for returning applicants
- GCC’s public goods assessment criteria:
a) Accessibility: Evaluating entry barriers
b) Impact: Assessing influence in relevant field and region
c) Scalability: Examining marginal expansion costs for growth potential
d) Team composition, execution capability, and budget allocation
This combined approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation of projects, balancing established standards with specific public goods considerations.
- Reflection on our selection process:
1）Qualitative vs. Quantitative Evaluation:
We relied more on qualitative assessments rather than strict quantitative scoring. Interestingly, our signal boosters developed their own quantitative scoring systems for allocation decisions, which was a pleasant surprise.
2)Scope of Project Categories:
Initially, we outlined specific tracks in our wishlist:
However, the volume and diversity of applications far exceeded our expectations. As a result, the selected projects extended beyond these four categories.
- Asian Dev Communities
- Policy Advocacy
- Public goods funding protocols and tools
- Privacy and Anti-censorship
Given this is the inaugural Asia Round, we felt it valuable to broaden our scope. This approach allowed more project types to receive support and provided a clearer picture of the Asian digital public goods landscape.
Moving forward, we’re considering focusing on one or two specific tracks. This would enable us to dive deeper and uncover higher-quality projects, while also facilitating easier comparisons for donors.
Matching Calculation and Challenges
As operators, this was our first experience with combining cluster matching and Quadratic Funding (QF) mechanisms. Here’s a summary of our approach and challenges:
Initial Testing:
- We tested both 100% QF and a 50% QF + cluster matching hybrid.
- Results were suboptimal, as we realized some projects’ donation amounts and participant numbers might have been inflated due to airdrop expectations.
- QF alone couldn’t effectively counterbalance this situation.
Final Decision:
- We opted for a 100% cluster matching mechanism.
- We acknowledged this was a risky choice.
Outcomes:
- Post-results, we received queries from teams that didn’t receive any matching funds.
- The approach effectively counterbalanced some vote-soliciting teams.
- However, it may have inadvertently affected projects with genuine donations.
Reflection:
We recognize the trade-offs in our chosen method. While it successfully mitigated some gaming attempts, it potentially impacted legitimate projects. This experience provides valuable insights for refining our approach in future rounds.