Thanks @M0nkeyFl0wer for putting this forward. I’m reviewing all GG24 proposals against my steward scorecard for consistency and transparency. You know as well as I do what a pain point this is, and I welcome the opportunity to find solutions for tools that don’t make me pull my hair out.
Submission Compliance
- Word count: ~1,150 (within required range)
- All template sections present and complete
- Domain Info detailed, though experts not yet confirmed
- Verdict: Compliant
Scorecard Evaluation
Total Score: 13 / 16
| # | Criteria | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Clarity & Relevance | 2 | Clear systemic framing of KYC honeypot risk | |
| Sensemaking Approach | 2 | Breach analysis, regulatory review, ZK/VC technology survey | |
| Gitcoin Fit & Uniqueness | 2 | Gitcoin uniquely suited to fund, test, and convene | |
| Fundraising Plan | 1 | Potential funders named, no commitments yet | |
| Capital Allocation Design | 2 | Multi-mechanism approach (QF, direct grants, subrounds) | |
| Domain Expertise & Delivery | 1 | Categories of experts listed, but not confirmed | |
| Clarity & Completeness | 2 | Meets template fully, well written | |
| Gitcoin Support Required | 1 | Gitcoin would need to convene experts, secure funders, host pilots |
Execution Gaps
- No confirmed domain experts or partners yet - knowing @M0nkeyFl0wer I don’t see this being an issue ahead of the round
- No anchor funder committed (trivial)
Next Step
This is a compliant and strategically strong proposal. To strengthen it further before ratification:
- Confirm at least one domain expert and one funder
- Flesh out the execution plan (who builds, who audits, expected milestones)
- Add detail on UX and jurisdictional edge cases
With these in place, this could serve as a high-priority GG24 domain.