GG23 OSS Program Mature Builders Retro Funding Results
Our GG23 OSS program Retro Funding results are live here! We’ll have one week for review and feedback then, barring any major issues, will proceed with payouts by May 9.
Special thanks to @rohit & @ccerv1 from Open Source Observer for your collaboration in this post and finalizing these results and learnings.
TL;DR
- This round was the first experiment for a Retro Funding round in our multi-mechanism future, rewarding mature builders who have demonstrated long-lasting impact within the Gitcoin ecosystem.
- $600k distributed across Gitcoin Grants’ Top 30 Mature Builders, with a floor minimum of $10k.
- This round formed part of our larger strategy of supporting builders at every stage of growth.
GG23 Overview
Gitcoin Grants Round 23 (GG23) introduced the program’s first Metrics-Based Retroactive Funding round, a pilot to reward proven open-source projects based on their past impact. This “Retro Funding” round ran in parallel to the usual Quadratic Funding rounds, allocating a dedicated $600k pool to 30 mature OSS (Open Source Software) projects that have demonstrated sustained contributions.
Recap
- Why Retro Funding? Gitcoin introduced the retroactive funding mechanism to complement Quadratic Funding, which supports early-stage projects, by providing funding for later-stage projects with measurable impact.
- Curated selection: Gitcoin’s team, in collaboration with the Open Source Observer (OSO), identified 30 top OSS builders in the Ethereum ecosystem to include. OSO used a data-driven, metrics-based ranking (including an Elo rating of past grant performance) to ensure these 30 were truly high-impact, not just well-known​.
- Badgeholder Voting: To distribute the $600K on a merit basis, Gitcoin empowered a group of vetted community members to vote on how to allocate funds among the 30 projects. Badgeholders were divided into three tiers (Experts, Donors, and GTC Holders) to reflect their expertise and stake in the ecosystem.
- Metrics-Based Voting Process: Rather than voting directly on individual projects, badgeholders voted on impact metrics – essentially deciding which success criteria mattered most. Each of the 30 projects had been evaluated on a standard set of metrics (using public data), and voters allocated weights to those metrics.
Mature Builders Retro Funding Round
Project-wise allocation of the Retro Funding round can be accessed here.
The final results of the GG23 Retro Funding Round allocated $600,000 across 30 mature Open-Source Software (OSS) projects, with allocations ranging from $10,000 (floor minimum) to $39,895. Because badgeholders voted on multiple impact metrics rather than just favorites, the results rewarded projects that were well-rounded in their impact. In practice, this meant no single metric (e.g., having massive past funding alone) guaranteed the top spot. Projects like L2BEAT, DefiLlama, and Blockscout topped the list, reflecting strong performance across multiple impact metrics, including developer activity, fundraising history, and community retention.
Every project gets a guaranteed $10 000 base grant, so the first $300 000 is shared equally. The next $300 000 is split proportionally to how much each project’s impact score exceeds the round’s lowest score—the higher you score above that benchmark, the larger your share.
The top-funded projects spanned multiple domains – from developer tools to core infrastructure to community services – mirroring the breadth of contribution in open source software. Many of these names are long-time Gitcoin grantees who have grown with the program, which made them strong candidates for retroactive rewards. The round’s outcome thus provided a much-needed funding boost to “critical digital public goods” that the community relies on, in line with Gitcoin’s mission.
Early Insights from Voting Patterns
Note: Blue data points correspond to expert badgeholders. Orange data points include everyone else.
Out of the total 61 voters, 27 voters were expert badgeholders (in blue in the chart). Beyond the raw numbers, the voting data revealed several notable patterns about how the community’s inputs were translated into funding outcomes:
- Experts prioritized long-term impact metrics: They placed more weight on funds raised in past rounds, retention of core developers, and network-wide contribution of project’s supporters, reflecting a mindset focused on sustained ecosystem growth.
- Non-experts leaned toward participation metrics: They favored new contributor onboarding and engagement in community rounds, suggesting a greater emphasis on immediate participation over sustained outcomes.
- Metrics related to retention and past funding exhibited high variation in their scoring: Specifically, developer retention, donor loyalty, and past fundraising success had wide vote dispersion, especially among non-experts, indicating differing interpretations of what these metrics signify.
- Developer activity had strong consensus: The number of currently active developers was scored consistently across all voter groups, highlighting a shared understanding of its importance.
- Experts exhibited more polarized voting behavior, as they were more likely to assign either very high or zero weight to certain metrics, reflecting stronger convictions. In contrast, non-experts tended to apply more moderate, evenly distributed scores.
Early learnings
The retro cohort encompassed a diverse range of OSS grantees, spanning low-level protocol infrastructure, developer libraries, end-user applications, community initiatives, and even non-Ethereum-specific technologies that benefit Ethereum, such as Tor. A subtle but important outcome of this round is the community discussion around which metrics should matter. By making the criteria explicit, the retro round sparked a healthy dialogue on what “impact” means.
For instance, some badgeholders weighted funds raised (GMV) less heavily, arguing that it could be gamed or that past QF success already gave those projects funds; instead, they boosted developer metrics to favor technical necessity. Others might have done the opposite, prioritizing community funding as the truest signal of value. The open nature of the process allows everyone to peek under the hood and participate in the conversation about what worked and what could be improved. Many badgeholders reported that the metric-based voting interface made their job easier – they didn’t have to rank 30 grants or know every project intimately individually, but could rely on data for guidance and then apply their domain knowledge.
The Retro round was an experiment in not just selecting the right mix of metrics, but also testing a new approach to community-driven, data-informed capital allocation. The process surfaced valuable insights—on both the metrics and the mechanics—that will inform the retrospective and future iterations.
Next Steps
Barring any issues, we plan to distribute the funds by May 9, after the results are open for discussion for one week.
It’s worth noting that GG23 pre-approved the matching fund to be paid out before results were posted. This means that the payout process to grantees will occur faster, after this post has been left open for community input.
We are also hosting an internal retro in the following weeks and will publish further results and learnings. And as always, a detailed blog post will be published on the day that payouts are distributed.
We’re also always looking for direct feedback from the community on which improvements would make GG24 even better. Please don’t hesitate to let us know!