This relates to how we define a “Domain”
From our POV, as shared in CeloPG’s Perspective on the Right Scope of GG24 Domains , we believe a Domain ideally merges 2 or more rounds/reports to increase effectiveness and growth potential.
Based on this logic, 4-6 Domains would be able to include 10+ reports.
Our proposed structure for Public Goods R&D and Targeted Development & Adoption already includes 4 of the top 5 reports and provides paths for 2-3 other Reports to apply as projects in the Domains.
Report ≠Succesfull Domain
There’s a big gap between a good enough report and a tangible, co-funded domain. The effort and resources needed to turn a concept into an efficient round are significant.
To get tangible and ensure we realize all innovation/value accrual potential, I would be keen to see concrete proposals from the report authors that include:
- A clear description of the scope of the Domain, including operational plan, tools to be used, timeline, governance, and operating team.
- Concrete co-funding commitments, ideally gathered in a verifiable Safe / Wallet, or a concrete deadline for when these funds will be deposited.
- A clear ask to Gitcoin: what amount of the Matching Pool and other resources are requested?
- Domain budget that already includes an operator fee in line with the ranges discussed in the Fair Fees Thread and clear “returns for Gitcoin” in terms of potential fees and co-branding.