Thank you @MathildaDV and everyone else for all the work put in. I really appreciate it, especially given the timeline pressure. I’m quite happy with the final domains shared with the community, and I’d also love to pre-ratify the matching.
In addition to agreeing with @owocki on the need for AI Builders and Privacy, I think we’re also missing a domain focused on enabling developers to access information about the grants ecosystem—past, present, and future—similar to Cartographer Syndicate and Crypto Grant Wire.
That said, there are many developers waiting for funding to continue their projects. Let’s vote and make this the start of GG24’s countdown!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.