We appreciate the thoughtful proposal and have several points we’d like to clarify and provide feedback on.
Regarding OSS Program Rounds,
- Could you please provide additional details on the Elo Rating mentioned in the GG23 OSS Program Eligibility Criteria? Specifically, we would love to know what metrics contribute to this score and how exactly these metrics reflect the impact of previously funded projects. Given that the Retro Round offers a valuable opportunity to measure the real impact and success of past projects, we believe clear understanding and transparency about this rating system is essential.
- For the dApps & Apps category, we note that projects within this category may typically have greater potential for generating financial returns compared to other categories, making them more attractive for venture capital funding. Therefore, could you elaborate on the justification for maintaining similar grant funding levels in this category relative to others?
- We find the funding allocation for Web3 Infrastructure and Developer Tooling & Libraries to be appropriate based on historical context and performance.
As for the Community Rounds, we have already evaluated them before, and we keep supporting them.
We also agree with the direction of exploring and validating the utility of GTC tokens through experimentation and fully support pursuing this approach. However, while we support moving forward with the experiment, we have some concerns regarding the design and its effectiveness, such as the fact that the current proposal may heavily rely on the Gitcoin DAO’s existing resources, potentially limiting its scalability or sustainability given the current Gitcoin DAO’s financial status. We feel further discussion and deeper research will be needed to address these concerns.