GG24 Domain Proposal Aggregation
Common Gaps Across Proposals
- Missing domain leads or confirmed experts — most cite “types” of advisors, but names, bios, and time commitments are missing.
- Co-funding is wishful, not real — EF, L2s, and DAOs are name-dropped often, but few proposals have signed commitments.
- Mechanism fuzziness — QF, retro, streaming, attestations, and prediction markets are listed without clear structure, eligibility, or governance.
- Execution plans are light — timelines, who does what, and 30–60 day deliverables are rarely defined.
- Complexity overload — some proposals want to do it all (tooling + education + funding + UX), with no sequencing.
- Tool ≠ adoption — mechanisms like MACI, Hypercerts, or attestations are proposed without user pipelines or infra support.
- Neutrality gap — a few reads like product marketing, not a community-driven domain (Butter, GravityDAO, etc).
Takeaways for Steward Voters
- Alignment is common. Readiness is rare. A lot of proposals vibe well, but only a few can launch by October.
- Experts + matching partners = stronger rounds. These are the biggest differentiators.
- Execution detail matters. Look for roles, roadmap, and mechanisms that are actually scoped.
- Coordination is possible. Several adjacent proposals (DeFi curation + InfoFi, Civic Tech + UX) could be merged or co-stewarded.
- Neutrality is non-negotiable. Gitcoin should fund communities, not market a product.
- Don’t confuse infra with a domain. Tools like Collabberry or Hypercerts are useful—just not standalone GG24 domains.
GG24 Domain Proposal Rankings - Updated 19 Aug 2025
Eligible Proposals (Stackranked by Blended Score)
| Rank | Proposal | Author | Rena Score | Owocki Score | Blended Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metafunding: Fund PGF Mechanisms & Research | @DavidDAO | 15 / 16 | 12 / 14 | 14.36 / 16 | Coalition + $35K secured; just keep scope tight and land October deliverables. |
| 2 | Ethereum Localism x Regen Coordination | @MontyMerlin | 13 / 16 | 13 / 14 | 13.93 / 16 | Bioregional funding model; strong traction, just needs pilot delivery plan. |
| 3 | Ethereum For The World | @LuukDAO | 14 / 16 | 12 / 14 | 13.86 / 16 | Real-world impact with strong institutional partners and co-funding. |
| 4 | Developer Tooling & Core Infrastructure | @MathildaDV | 13 / 16 | 11 / 14 | 12.79 / 16 | Fit-for-purpose (QF + Deep Funding); needs reviewer rubric + L2 anchors. |
| 5 | InfoFi | @vaughnmck | 11 / 16 | 12 / 14 | 12.36 / 16 | Narrow to 3–5 markets; publish governance/UX/compliance guardrails; add one co-funder. |
| 6 | Open Data Standards, Infrastructure & Analytics | @rohit | 13 / 16 | 10 / 14 | 12.21 / 16 | Well-argued; form a working group, confirm partners, publish a roadmap. |
| 7 | Privacy-Preserving KYC | @M0nkeyFl0wer | 13 / 16 | 10 / 14 | 12.21 / 16 | Strong, compliant, high-impact; needs named experts + an anchor funder. |
| 8 | Open Civic Innovation | @omniharmonic | 12 / 16 | 10.5 / 14 | 12 / 16 | Strong frame; confirm stewards + funder; tighten scope for October. |
| 9 | Mechanism Builders Domain | @thedevanshmehta | 11 / 16 | 11 / 16 | 11.79 / 16 | Clear usage-based retro model; add review panel, define “value routed,” secure co-funding. |
| 10 | The EPIC Awards: Ethereum People’s Choice Awards | @MoeNick | 11 / 14 | 11 / 16 | 11.79 / 16 | Playful legitimacy layer; needs GTM plan + strong incentive design. |
| 11 | AI Builders Domain | @thedevanshmehta | 10 / 16 | 10 / 14 | 10.71 / 16 | Innovative; needs verification safeguards, evaluation rubric, and co-funding. |
| 12 | DeFi Transparency and Decentralization Assessment | @marcvlad | 9 / 16 | 9 / 16 | 9.64 / 16 | Name reviewers + COI policy; align with L2Beat/DeFi Safety/Bluechip; lock October targets. |
| 13 | Outcome Based Funding for Web3 Popups | @nidiyia | 9 / 16 | 9 / 14 | 9.64 / 16 | Hypercerts + popups = good experiment; needs co-funding + evaluator network. |
| 14 | The Case for Privacy (MACI x Allo) | @johnguilding | 9 / 14 | 9 / 14 | 9.64 / 16 | Strong thematic fit; missing delivery team, operator, or co-funding. |
| 15 | DeSci – Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report | @swiftevo | 10 / 16 | 8 / 14 | 9.57 / 16 | High alignment + ops history; publish rubric, name regional partners, land one co-funder. |
| 16 | Exit-to-Community | @paul2 | 9 / 16 | — | 9 / 16 | Eligible; promising mechanisms but underdefined delivery plan. |
| 17 | Builder Development: Ethereum’s Most Meaningful Problem | @KarlaGod | 10 / 16 | 6 / 14 | 8.43 / 16 | Good framing; needs steward, mechanism, and a funder in discussion. |
| 18 | GG24: UX & Consumer Apps | @atenyun | 6 / 16 | 4.5 / 16 | 5.25 / 16 | Broad/early; name stewards, narrow to onboarding or gas UX, add an L2 partner, publish Oct plan. |
Ineligible Proposals (Stackranked by Blended Score)
| Rank | Proposal | Submitter | Date Submitted | Compliance Pass | Rena Score | Owocki Score | Blended Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GG24: Case for Dev Tooling | @abcoathup | Aug 14, 2025 | (missing sections) |
7 / 16 | 12 / 16 | 9.5 / 16 | Missing metrics, sensemaking, team, fundraising → needs full rewrite to qualify. |
| 2 | Sensemaking Report: Fragmented Fundraising Issues | @Hydrapad | Jun 25, 2025 | Product Pitch |
5 / 16 | 7 / 16 | 6 / 16 | Reads as a product pitch; lacks neutrality, independence, and governance framing. |
| 3 | GG24 Sense Making Report: Breaking into Enterprise | @cryptotwilight | Aug 15, 2025 | (no experts, no co-funding, no mechanism) |
3 / 16 | 3 / 14 | 3 / 15 | Broad/aspirational; no named experts, no committed funders, undefined allocation method. |
| 4 | GravityDAO v3: Paradox Management for Ethereum Governance | @mafer-cordovas | Aug 15, 2025 | Product Pitch |
N/A | N/A | N/A | Single-project roadmap disguised as a domain; no mechanism or ecosystem framing. |
| 5 | Collabberry: Peer-Based Post-Grant Allocation Tool | @sepu85 | Jul 9, 2025 | (Not a domain proposal) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | Not a GG24 domain; interesting coordination tooling. No capital strategy, mechanism, or deliverables. Could be useful if adopted voluntarily by another domain. |
Eligibility Rule of Thumb (open to everyone’s feedback on this!)
Proposals are marked ineligible if they fail baseline compliance criteria:
- No confirmed domain experts or operators (not even named, let alone committed).
- No co-funding (not just “targets,” but zero signals of actual commitments).
- No defined allocation mechanism (unclear how funds would be distributed).
- Or if they are product pitches disguised as domains, lacking neutrality.
If a proposal meets the template and is structurally sound (problem, sensemaking, metrics, domain info), it stays in eligible even if weak — it just scores low. If it misses one or more of the above baseline criteria, it is moved to ineligible.