Thanks, @MontyMerlin — hopefully so!
I approve the pre-ratified matching fund amounts from the multisig for GG24, totaling $1,255,00
With that dropping a few replies below:
It may be worth considering that we denominate GG rounds and the amounts to be disbursed in ETH moving forward. This would make it easier (IMO) to budget versus the ETH to $$ conversions.
Agree with @owocki here and would love to see what we can do to enable these domains in future rounds.
3 Likes
I approve the pre-ratified matching fund amounts from the Gitcoin.eth multisig for GG24, totaling $1,255,00
It’s been an intense but highly rewarding exercise meeting with the various co-funders and prospective domain operations. I’m confident the matches proposed will result in effectively funding what matters and set a solid foundation for further growth of the Domains and Gitcoin as a whole.
4 Likes
At a high level, this looks good to me. I like that Gitcoin is able to reduce or yank funding if the domain fails to achieve its goals.
I wanted to get a bit more details in the synthesis and tried to construct this table.
| Round / Domain Name | Target Funding | 3rd-Party Funding / Commits | Gitcoin Match Requested | Operator(s) / Domain Stewards | 3rd-Party Funders (Names & Amounts) | Mechanism(s) | Eligible Recipients / Scope / Eligible Projects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum Developer Tooling & Infrastructure | $620,000 | $175,000 | $445,000 | Steward: Dev Tools Guild. Domain Operators: Gitcoin Core & “Team Tiger” per operator aggregation plans. | Vitalik is committing $175K and EF $55K (for Opex) | Quadratic Funding ($200K) and Deep Funding with Seer prediction market ($350K) | Free / open source dev tools, core infrastructure (SDKs, compilers, libraries, etc.), tooling meeting criteria of positive impact over time. |
| Interop Standards, Infra, and Analytics | $300,000 | $100,000 | $200,000 | Round Operators / Stewards: Rohith Malekar & Sov. | $50K from EF; remaining $50K TBD | Quadratic Funding ($150K) and Retro Rewards ($150K). | Projects that work on Open Intents Framework standards / tools; open data / analytics; interoperability across chains. |
| Public Goods R&D | $335,000 | $135,000 | $200,000 | Stewarded by Recerts, led by DavidDAO & Sejal Rekhan; supported by CeloPG & Greenpill Dev Guild. | CeloPG ($35,000), Octant ($20,000), Seer ($15,000), Allo ($15,000), FundingTheCommons ($10,000), GainForest ($5,000), Hypercerts ($5,000), 1Hive ($10,000 pending governance), PublicNouns ($10,000 pending governance) — sum ~$105,000 | Conviction-based funding plus 20% in retro rewards | Researchers, academic / applied studies, open source neutral tooling; projects producing mechanism / PGF insights, interoperable tools. |
| Targeted Development & Adoption | $445,000 | $185,000 | $260,000 | Steward / Domain Operator: “Ethereum For The World” (EFtW) — Luuk Weber, Monty Merlin, Erik Brinde. | Cofunders: CeloPG, BioFi, CCN (Momus Collective), Ma Earth with $160,000 committed so far. | Mixed: Direct grants (75% via Conviction Voting), Retro review (25%), outcome-based rounds. | SDG-aligned development projects, local hubs, regional onboarding, bioregional reforestation, Web3 hubs, projects expanding Ethereum adoption in regions. |
| InfoFi | $125,000 | $50,000 | $75,000 | Steward / Proposal Lead: Butter team; Advisory Board: Robin Hanson, Yiling Chen, Bo Waggoner. | So far no confirmed cofunders listed publicly. | Prediction markets on Butter | Information markets; prediction, advisory, decision, funding etc.; tools / infrastructure for InfoFi; usable by researchers, builders in Ethereum ecosystem. |
| Outcome Based Funding for Web3 Popups | $125,000 | $50,000 | $75,000 | Operator / Steward: Voicedeck; the proposal provides eligibility criteria and evaluation framework. | So far no confirmed cofunders listed publicly. | Hypercerts purchases + measurable cost-benefit ratios. | Popup residencies & events that fulfill criteria (transparent budgets, outcomes, future editions, etc.), ILR residencies, pop-up cities, residencies. |
| Totals / Subtotals | $1,950,000 | $695,000 | $1,255,000 | — | — | — | — |
Separately, I believe there was some discussion about separating the funds available for projects from the total funding required to operate the round (including operators’ fees). It would be helpful to have those details captured here as well.
4 Likes
I love the Domain’s selection for GG24. IMO, it is doubling down on the things the GG Program has been supporting, but it is also creating a lot of room for experiments and new variables to enter the equation.
Having said that, I would also echo @ccerv1 concerns about Operational Expenses. The proposals mention that up to 13.6% could be going to Operations, but none of the proposals provide a “tentative breakdown” of those costs or even how they would be tracked and verified by Gitcoin Stakeholders.
This is important information to disclose for many reasons, but mainly because it’s between $125,500 - $170,680 being earmarked for operations out of the funding request from the matching pool.
2 Likes
I believe the tenative plan is to use fair fees no? I think @MathildaDV was going to bring that to a vote soon.
1 Like
Great summary @ccerv1. Just to clarify PGF R&D Round is also Mixed and will use Peer-Reviewed Hypercerts for the Mechanism Design Round. Also agree with @MontyMerlin @ivanmolto that the dashboard and map falls into the PGF R&D domain.
2 Likes
Yes fair fees are already baked into this ratification proposal. @LuukDAO and I will be posting an update that includes those details here shortly!
1 Like
I support ratifying these domains and appreciate all the work done by the community and stakeholders in sense-making to set these domains. Ratifying these rounds will enable us to move forward with the domains and continue to flesh them out more so builders and communities have a good experience in GG24.
One area I would like to see infused within the other rounds is a focus on privacy and identity given the privacy domain did not make the cut. Privacy is integral in my opinion to scaling Ethereum and adoption of regenerative tools. As an operator for the PG tooling round in the Public Goods R&D domain we’ll look to support privacy and identity as core primitives to build upon and hope to see other domains do the same where applicable.
3 Likes
Slight clarification on the Public Goods R&D domain. @paul2 and I are also operators and the mechanisms are hypercerts for the research round and conviction/retro funding for the PG tooling development round.
2 Likes
[UPDATED]: I have updated the post with the following details:
2 Likes
strong plus one here! privacy is an important public good and with the EF just releasing their privacy roadmap, we need to start prioritizing it!
2 Likes
Looks good to me and would vote yes.
Also impatiently waiting on news about when/how Grants Stack will be revived (you know, that beautiful platform on which we spent tens of millions).
And yes I know Allo Protocol will be reused in some way (unclear to me in what way), and yes I know in GG24 you will step away from QF alone.
The sunk cost fallacy is a common decision-making bias where people continue an endeavor (time, money, effort, or resources) because they’ve already invested in it—even when the current costs outweigh the potential benefits.
I’m ready to let go of the sunk costs, I dont see any reason we’d revamp GS. IMO the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. If there was demand for it (and profit from keeping it online), we’d have seen it when GS was alive 2023-2025.
That said @divine-comedian has been revamped some of the infrastrucutre and is running it now. More details here What's happening with the Grants stack indexer?
2 Likes
This proposal is now live on Snapshot ready for voting: https://snapshot.box/#/s:gitcoindao.eth/proposal/0xfe763827c432492c9280eaef057698b1455e989b4ea18da7f9333a73bf82a111
I am also hopeful that even with the sunk cost, there are ecosystem-wide “dividends” for the future generation of capital allocation tooling by studying what worked well (and didn’t) with Grants Stack. Here are a few looking outside-in:
- Keep workflows decoupled: Don’t tightly link application, discovery, and allocation processes.
- Adopt open standards: Use frameworks (e.g., DAO-IP5) so tools can interoperate and best-in-class modules can be swapped easily.
- Expect a learning curve: Every new allocation mechanism (beyond QF and Direct Grants) will go through its own Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing cycle.
- So avoid locking in too early: Prematurely hardening technical choices can freeze the system into patterns that may not fit once mechanisms mature.
3 Likes
i’d add
- build something people want
- don’t miss the market (grants stack was so focused on QF but didnt deliver it until 2023 when the market was moving on)
- iterate quickly
- staff your product team with people who are lean, hungry, and 0 to 1 minded. you must hit 0 to 1 before 1 to 10.
- use your product yourself, eat your own dogfood.
- build for modularity/composability so others can extend your software
2 Likes
Looks great to me, I vote yes, thank you @MathildaDV for putting this together and to the Gitcoin team.
