Thanks for the thoughtful proposal @atenyun!
Evaluated using my steward scorecard — reviewed and iterated manually for consistency, clarity, and alignment with GG24 criteria.
Submission Compliance
- Full structure is present: problem, sensemaking, metrics, domain info
- No domain experts or stewards confirmed
- No co-funding named; funder alignment assumed but not validated
- Broad scope — spans onboarding, AA, fee UX, and app creation with minimal execution detail
- Verdict: Compliant, but too diffuse and underdefined for GG24 delivery
Scorecard Evaluation
Total Score: 6 / 16
| Criteria | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Clarity | 2 | Great articulation of onboarding and UX friction — hits real pain points across wallet setup, gas UX, and lack of apps |
| Sensemaking Approach | 1 | Uses personal experience and forum scanning; lacks ecosystem-wide data or examples beyond anecdotal trends |
| Gitcoin Fit | 1 | Ethereum UX is a great target — but too broad to anchor a domain without sharper execution or partner clarity |
| Fundraising Plan | 0 | Mentions L2s and apps as natural co-funders, but no outreach, LOIs, or soft commits shared |
| Capital Allocation Design | 1 | QF + RPGF is fine, but no rationale for how/why it fits this surface area; no governance process outlined |
| Domain Expertise | 0 | Proposer has solid credentials but no confirmed co-stewards or named collaborators |
| Clarity & Completeness | 1 | Generally readable, but needs more structure in execution and success metrics |
| Gitcoin Support Required | 0 | Would require Gitcoin to support domain leads, define eligibility, design subrounds — nothing scoped or delegated yet |
Feedback for Improvement
Where I agree with Owocki:
- Domain is underpowered. You need named experts and better execution planning.
- QF + RPGF might not be the best model for this surface — consider milestone-based direct grants or embedded UX pilots.
- Timeline is too long — if nothing lands by October, this domain risks being deprioritized.
What I’d add:
- The framing is strong, but this feels like a wishlist more than a funding strategy. What actually ships?
- Narrow to one slice: e.g. account abstraction wallet UX or gasless flows. Anchor in one specific user journey.
- You say “apps are missing” — Suggest a UX audit of the top 10 wallets and show where users drop off. That’s a better proof of impact than narrative alone.
Right now, this reads like a solid insight piece, not a ready-to-run domain.
Would support if:
- You name a multi-party steward team with wallet + onboarding depth
- You narrow the round scope to a single pain point (e.g. onboarding friction)
- You secure one co-funding partner from L2 or wallet infra and show a roadmap for October deliverables