gm @Johnadek, you need to reach out to the Round Operators for the Web3 for Universities Round, as Community Rounds aren’t managed by Gitcoin.
1 Like
Are projects who have intentionally colluded and participated in sybil attacks excluded? I picked a couple of receiving addresses from the QF calculator and ran them through Arkham. There is a clear intentional pattern of sending large amounts from the receiver address to other passported addresses through the across bridge 2 hops, who then go on to donate more than 99% of the funds forwarded back to the colluding receivers. There are even projects who both forward to the same users who go on to donate back to those projects and just dust a couple other projects.
Looking at the matched donors and amounts its impossible those donations have been ignored, given the full match amount is close to the total the project collected. Those projects are with very high gitcoin matching results and seem to have done a ton of recycling of funds through passported addresses?
1 Like
gm @CheatDetector, please fill out this form with those findings https://forms.gle/gjnz7mtCcd6aRTFw6
2 Likes
Thanks for organizing and the detailed result report!
We are from dDevKit, this GG#23 dev tools round we ranked #5 by Most contributors (168) & #6 by Most donations at the end.
Seems we have mismatched expectations that per above results we end up ranking #22 with ~$1.8k matching funding. Understand the role of COCM, where we tried to attend shill space, mobilize our network and onboarded quite some donors new to gitcoin along the process.
A few things we wonder are
- did we miss out anything or any patterns we should avoid
- if dev activities/ contributing metrics of repo is part of the formula? before the round we changed our github repo name, not sure if there is implication.
- thus we also created a new gitcoin project thus past round is not attached, will that affect the result?
Our project perhaps doesn’t exists without gitcoin in the first place – We’d appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this to help our understanding. We also wonder if gitcoin round is good for us to onboard users, not just rely on highly active wallets Web3 ecosystems in order to align with the formula.
1 Like
“We also wonder if gitcoin round is good for us to onboard users, not just rely on highly active wallets Web3 ecosystems in order to align with the formula.”
I was about to ask the same. Thanks to raise it up. I look forward from any Gitcoin’s team answer.
Thank you for such an extensive report.
As PM at Animal Social Club this has been a first direct experience with Gitcoin QF.
Traveling during the fundraising weeks impacted team’s coordination and thus weakened our marketing approach, but still we’re happy to have learned a lot and for any funds we’ll receive.
Also, it’s been amazing to see many friends met IRL at conferences running their QF campaigns and achieving some great results.
Happy for all. Congrats to Gitcoin. Appreciate for this growing opportunity 
1 Like
Thanks so much for the detailed report!
We’re building Mini Bridge and ranked #5 for both Most Contributors and Most Donations in the Infra round. But our matched result came out at #11, and we’re trying to figure out why there’s such a big gap between the donation rank and matched rank.
Really appreciate your support for our project!
2 Likes
Hi Gitcoin Team,
First of all, thank you for all the hard work in organizing GG23.
I have a quick question regarding the matching calculation under the COCM model.
I noticed a case where two projects have very different outcomes despite differing crowdfund amounts and number of contributors.
For example:
- ABI Ninja received $79.68 in crowdfunds from 41 contributors, and matched $5,298.
- SuperUI received $250.45 from 79 contributors, but matched only $356.
Could you help clarify how the diversity score or sybil resistance mechanism affected this result?
Is there anything we could do in the future to better optimize for matching outcomes, apart from increasing total crowdfunds or contributors?
Really appreciate your time and all the improvements made to the grants program.
3 Likes
I am sure they have logics and good reasoning. And I agree with you that Gitcoin has been supporting web3 community so long I can remember. Personally I don’t really care about the amount/matching fund we have received. Community showed love and support. It’s good enough knowing 1400+ people went to Gitcoin to show support for our project.
2 Likes
Thank you for the detailed report @MathildaDV !
Can you help me understand where Unlock DAO is in all of this, or didn’t we end up not making it at all? I knew only after that I should have applied for the Infrastructure round but well there is always something to learn …
2 Likes
Check the tabs in the document.
1 Like
Thanks for the comment @debuggingfuture. So, yes this is COCM in action. With traditional QF, your match would’ve looked different, but due to us using COCM (which is the most sybil-resistant), your match amount would look different.
This is due to the fact that COCM favors projects that have a wider range of donors from various communities. So, if you have a donor base that only donates to your project and not other projects, this is where the difference comes in.
No, COCM takes into account donor behaviour, and coupled with Passport’s MBD (as outlined in this post), the onchain activity of the wallets donating!
Hope that clears things up for you!
Thanks @DeFiTeddy! Yes, the amount of donations is important in traditional QF, but in COCM having a wide range of donors is more important, so for this reason that’s why you’re seeing that gap. As outlined in this post, the two-pronged sybil resistance that we have ensures a fair distribution of funds. We always encourage projects to suggest to their donor base to not only donate to their project, but to others in the round as well!
Hope that clears things up!
I see Unlock Protocol listed in dApps & Apps.
Thank you. This is being investigated, alongside all other reports that we have and that we may receive.
Thank you for the response @MathildaDV it is helpful.
We understand motivations of COCM and have the trust it is well designed & executed.
Thus I think we are aligned with COCM in principle, however we still find it challenging to understand how it actually play out given the algorithm complexity.
It will be great if some heruistic metrics/elaborations are published alongside the matching results (besides on-chain calculations as proposed),
for examples we wonder, for each project
- how many donors are filtered in the first place (base on Passport MBD)?
- % of donors donating to other projects?
- donor similarity for the project and how is that being calculated?
- visualized comparsion re diversity for projects?
In our case in last round with same COCM mechanism we were fortunately a top matched project (hackathon alumini). While this time similarily we raised donations from quite some different communities and with the large contributors count come organically, we are left feeling “yea we should be diverse with a valuable community” with COCM saying “no not actually diverse enough”.
Anyway just two cents from a project perspective, and we would love to communicate things clearly to our supporters as well.
Still have to say, thank you Gitcoin!
I understand the need to understand these sybil-resistant mechanisms on a deeper level, but there’s also a reason why we only release what we do – so that the integrity of sybil resistance remains in tact, and that it protects future rounds from being gamed.
Everything you need to know about COCM and how it works can be found in this post!
Thanks – Seems i misunderstood it is in the process of moving on chain. Will appreciate any future discussions and materials on trade offs it made, such as on attributes related to ethereum alginment
Decentralization and security - avoiding points of trust, minimizing censorship vulnerabilities, and minimizing centralized infrastructure dependency. The natural metrics are (i) the walkaway test : if your team and servers disappear tomorrow, will your application still be usable, and (ii) the insider attack test : if your team itself tries to attack the system, how much will break, and how much harm could you do