@deltajuliet GG24 Steward Scorecard
This is the scorecard I’ll be using to evaluate GG24 domain proposals.
It combines two layers:
- A basic submission compliance check to ensure proposals follow the required format.
- A strategic evaluation rubric that scores clarity, execution readiness, and long-term value.
I’ve kept the total score at 16 points to align with @owocki’s format, but the criteria maps directly to the official GG24 template as outlined by @MathildaDV. This makes it easier to compare across stewards without compromising judgment or perspective.
@owocki noted, “different scorecards are a feature, not a bug in a polycentric political economy.” I agree — variation in how we assess these domains is part of what makes the process more robust.
Submission Compliance Check (Pass/Fail)
Proposals should meet the GG24 template requirements before being scored as outlined here:
- 800–1,200 words total
- Problem & Impact (400–500 words)
- Sensemaking Analysis (200–400 words)
- Gitcoin Fit & Fundraising (200–400 words)
- Success Metrics & Reflection (200–300 words)
- Domain Info (experts, mechanisms, subrounds if any)
If a proposal misses this structure, I’ll move on. If it passes, it gets a score below.
Scoring Rubric (16 points total)
Each category is scored from 0 to 2:
- 0 = Weak or missing
- 1 = Adequate but incomplete or unclear
- 2 = Strong, complete, and well-executed
| # | Criteria | 0 pts | 1 pt | 2 pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem Clarity & Relevance | Vague, no urgency or data | Some clarity, limited impact or scope | Specific, urgent, backed by credible signal |
| 2 | Sensemaking Approach | No method or sources | Some tools mentioned, weak synthesis | Clear methodology, good inputs, thoughtful aggregation |
| 3 | Gitcoin Fit & Uniqueness | Unclear why Gitcoin would participate | Partial alignment | Strong case for why Gitcoin is uniquely suited |
| 4 | Fundraising Plan | No plan, no leads | Loose plan, speculative funders | Realistic path to $50K+, named sponsors or traction |
| 5 | Capital Allocation Design | Mechanism doesn’t fit problem | Some alignment, lacks clarity | Well-matched mechanism, good structure, feasible scope |
| 6 | Domain Expertise & Delivery | No team, unclear ownership | Named lead but vague capacity | Strong team, committed lead, ready to execute |
| 7 | Clarity & Completeness | Disorganized, missing key pieces | Meets minimum structure, some confusion | Clean, well-organized, follows full template |
| 8 | Gitcoin Support Required | Heavy lift from Gitcoin to make viable | Shared ownership, but Gitcoin would still need to fill gaps | Proposer has execution covered; Gitcoin’s role is minimal input for success |
Total Score: __ / 16
I’ll post scores for proposals that pass compliance, and leave feedback where I think improvements are actionable. This scorecard helps me stay consistent while reviewing at scale, and highlights which proposals are ready — and which still need work.
Agree w/ @sejalrekhan points above - would be great to see time for submissions to amend proposals, and work w/ the community on the funding that translates into domains.