[GITCOIN 3.0] Gitcoin Grants 3.0: Strategy Sprint

🧙 🧙‍♀️ Ideas and Open Discussion
1

TL:DR - For the next evolution of Gitcoin and the program, I propose a strategic sprint (funded by Gitcoin + executed by Allo.Capital) to give Gitcoin + its community a framework on how to structure our evolution moving forward for both the GG Program and its future.

Gitcoin Grants 23 just wrapped, we’ve made some hard decisions, and Gitcoin is resetting for its next era.

@owocki recently shared his vision for Gitcoin 3.0 – a “Network-First Funding Festival” focused on solving Ethereum’s biggest problems, fueled by the treasury that gives us ~5 years of runway.

The Gitcoin Grants program remains the core engine, but it is (and should be) evolving beyond just quadratic funding, inviting multiple funding mechanisms and network leaders to help allocate capital to what matters most. Where Gitcoin becomes a schelling point for high-impact Ethereum builders and novel funding experiments. This could be magical or a nightmare. I’d like to propose how we (Gitcoin) could facilitate this in the best way while maintaining the integrity of the GG program.

Folks like @MathildaDV (our Grants Program Lead) have raised important questions about the builder experience as we embrace experimentation and that we must keep our program’s impact high while we move to whatever comes next. We can’t lose sight of the people building projects on the ground, especially as we retire the Grants Stack platform at the end of May and potentially onboard new tools. We need to make any transition as smooth and supported as possible for our builders.


Gitcoin Grants should cement itself as the go-to destination for high-impact builders and funders in the Ethereum ecosystem, and we need to carry forward lessons from the program into GG24 within a revamped structure. There’s a shared sense that this is our opportunity to double down on what works and fix what doesn’t, so that Gitcoin Grants can remain a pillar of public goods funding for the long haul.

Key Challenges & Decisions Ahead

There are some fundamental questions we as a community need to answer. Here are the big challenges on my radar for GG24 (and beyond):

  • Retiring Grants Stack
    • As you know, we made the tough call to wind down the Grants Stack tech and the whole Grants Labs unit by the end of May 2025, due to unsustainable costs. This was painful but necessary to protect Gitcoin’s overall runway. Now we must decide on the software platform(s) and tools that will power future rounds. Do we lean on other partner solutions? Do we have partners run their own rounds from the Matching Pool? Perhaps a mix? We need a clear strategy for what infrastructure we’ll use for GG24 and beyond.
  • Funding mechanisms:
    • Quadratic Funding has been our flagship, but our future will likely be polyglot – Which funding mechanisms do we adopt or prioritize for upcoming rounds? How do we decide that, and how do we support those experiments? The community has voiced excitement about experimentation and concern about getting it right. We need a strategy for evaluating and selecting mechanisms for our rounds – balancing innovation with practicality.
  • Financial sustainability:
    • Gitcoin’s mission is altruistic, but the organization itself needs a sustainable model. Going forward, how will Gitcoin Grants fund itself (and the DAO at large) so we can keep doing this in 2026, 2030, 2040? Implementing fair fee models or other value captures in our grants program? We should define what a sustainable fee or funding model looks like (for Gitcoin and for those who run rounds using our tools) – striking the right balance so that builders get funded and Gitcoin’s lights stay on.
  • Engaging builders and round operators
    • Gitcoin Grants has been moving toward a more decentralized, community-led model (e.g. the Community Rounds with external operators/councils). If we go “network-first,” we’ll have various round operators and ecosystem partners running their own funding rounds through Gitcoin. How do we keep them engaged, supported, and aligned? In practice, we’ll need to clarify the roles: Which rounds will Gitcoin core team still operate directly (likely our main OSS rounds), and which can be truly community-operated? What criteria or onboarding do outside round operators need to meet? Ensuring trust and alignment across a more federated structure is a challenge we have to tackle head-on.
  • Redefining “Gitcoin Grants”:
    • Post-transition, Gitcoin Grants might look more like a network of many funding rounds, or a community hub for public goods funding, or perhaps simply our flagship quarterly rounds with added bells and whistles. Owocki’s vision casts Gitcoin Grants as the central pillar of a funding network for Ethereum public goods. Others have described positioning Gitcoin Grants as the default destination for builders seeking funding and funders seeking impact. We should articulate a clear definition for Gitcoin Grants going forward, so everyone knows what we’re rallying around. (It’ll help us communicate our value, too, and prevent confusion: are we a grants platform? a series of events? a movement?)

I believe we shouldn’t tackle it in an ad-hoc, piecemeal way. Each of these decisions is interconnected. The funding mechanisms we choose will affect builder experience; the platform we use will affect what mechanisms are possible; our sustainability model will affect who wants to run rounds with us; and our overall identity ties it all together. We need a holistic strategy.

Proposal: A Time-Boxed Strategy Sprint (3 - 4 weeks)

To address the above, I propose engaging Allo.Capital on a short but intense “strategy sprint” - This sprint would aim to produce:

  • A decision framework for our tech and mechanisms: Define how we will choose the software platform(s) and funding mechanism(s) for Gitcoin Grants rounds. For example, what criteria must be met for us to adopt a given tool or mechanism? (Security, decentralization, ease of use, cost, etc.) Likewise, we should outline which funding models (QF, retro PGF, quadratic voting, etc.) we’ll pilot in GG24 and beyond and how to evaluate new ones. Essentially: **how do we decide what to build or fund, and what mix of funding models to run? Are those build on a central platform or woven together?

  • Sustainability criteria and models: Establish what a sustainable Gitcoin Grants program looks like in terms of finances. This includes agreeing on fair fee structures or revenue models. For instance, should Gitcoin charge a small percentage of matching funds to grantees or take a protocol fee from rounds? How do we ensure round operators (the “builders” of funding mechanisms) get enough upside for their efforts without draining match pools? We should surface options (e.g. Owocki’s “fair fees” model), treasury staking for GTC utility, ecosystem sponsorships, etc.) and hash out pros/cons.

  • Multiple implementation paths (with pros/cons): Rather than pre-deciding a single path forward, let’s use this sprint to map out a few legitimate paths we could take for Gitcoin Grants over the next year or so. Each path will have trade-offs. Let’s articulate 2–3 distinct approaches, along with their advantages, risks, resource needs, etc. This way, the community (via governance) can make an informed choice, or even pursue a hybrid of the best ideas.

  • A stronger governance & coordination process: Design the governance/coordination structure that will carry this work forward without burning everyone out. The worst outcome would be to hype up experimentation and community input, only to end up with decision paralysis or volunteer exhaustion.

How can we organize ourselves so that ideas are executed efficiently and contributors are recognized (and not overburdened)? Clearer decision-making roles, and better “sensemaking”. The sprint should produce a lightweight plan for how we’ll coordinate between rounds and govern the program’s evolution led by Mathilda – ensuring we maintain momentum and sanity. We need a foundation for governance that scales with more community input yet keeps things coherent.

We’d time-box this strategy sprint to 3 - 4 weeks of focused effort. That’s enough time to gather ideas, interview partners, stakeholders and KOLs and converge on decisions IMO.

I propose Allo.Capital facilitates and supports this sprint. We have context on the constraints, we know the partners, and honestly, we have a vested interest in Gitcoin’s success.

However – let me be super clear – the outcomes of this sprint are not pre-baked by Allo.Capital or any one team. Allo.Capital’s involvement will be as a facilitator and knowledge resource, not a top-down decision-maker and the decisions and final strategy should reflect community consensus of solutions provided, nor is this decision carried by my involvement. It’s just me, Mats and a small team at Gitcoin - and I want to ensure we are making the right decisions w/ the capacity we have.

Positioning


I’m coming to you wearing two hats: as Gitcoin’s (still-interim) Executive Director and as the co-founder of Allo.Capital.

I want to be transparent about my dual role up front. It puts me in a unique position of both deep investment in Gitcoin’s mission and close proximity to the tech that’s powered our grants program but has obvious conflicts of interest. With my Gitcoin hat on - I’d like to dive into building new infrastructure or launching the next grants round – to pause, clarify, and strategically align on where the Gitcoin Grants Program goes from here, and I’d like to propose Allo.Capital facilitates this first stage (with the community’s blessing).

Sprint Overview

A 3 - 4 week sprint, co-owned by key internal stakeholders (Mathilda, Kevin, Rena) and the community (round operators, KOLs, sensemakers).

Allo.Capital will facilitate workshops, interviews, and documentation—but not push any particular tech. Final recommendations go straight to governance.

Things to consider

Some of the items I think are useful to consider that have also been flagged by Mathilda and the team (and we should be considered to include in the report):

  1. Infrastructure & Shared Services

    • Core grants engine + smart contracts
    • Round-management APIs, data export, identity/KYC hooks
    • Historical data migration

  2. Quadratic Funding (QF)

    • On-chain matching math that’s battle-tested
    • Clear donor/grantee flows
    • Built-in Sybil/fraud defenses

  3. Retroactive Funding Operator

    • Objective criteria for “post-proof” funding
    • Transparent scoring and payout rhythm

  4. Dedicated Domain Allocation (DDA) Operator

    • Domains co-created with KOLs (e.g. infra, tooling, education)
    • Mechanism per domain (QF, conviction voting, deep funding, etc.)
    • Domain-level KPIs and public reporting

Rough Timeline

April 2025 - June 2025 - Sensemaking about Ethereums biggest problems

May 2025 - First Domains Announced, RFPs for software providers issued (Trad rounds, OSS Rounds)

July 2025 - Next Domains Announced, RFPs for software providers issued (any more experimental rounds)

September 2025 - Testnet Rounds

October 2025 - GG24

Input

What big strategic questions do you think we need to answer? Are there considerations I missed above? Which of the challenges excite or concern you the most? The goal here is to surface all the key questions and perspectives before we lock in a path.

Some specific prompts to consider in your feedback:

  • Infrastructure: Do you have thoughts on what our grants platform should look like post-Grants Stack?

  • Mechanisms: Which new funding mechanisms (if any) are you most excited to see in GG24? Any experimental ideas you believe Gitcoin should try, or ones we should avoid?

  • Sustainability: What ideas do you have for making Gitcoin (and round operators) financially sustainable? Are there models from other projects/DAOs we should emulate?

  • Governance: How can we improve our coordination without overloading contributors? Any suggestions for how to structure this strategy sprint itself to be effective?

How You Can Help

  • Flag gaps: Is there a service layer or question we’ve missed investigating?
  • Which KOLs or operator teams should we talk to?
  • Drop platform, mechanism, or sustainability proposals into the comments.

Feel free to answer any of the above or just share whatever is on your mind after reading this.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that change can be daunting. We’ve had our share of pivots and growing pain but I truly believe Gitcoin’s greatest asset is our community’s resilience and commitment to our mission to identify and Fund What Matters for Ethereum.

12 Likes
2

Thank you so much Delta Juliet for this detailed deconstruction on Gitcoin 3.0

On Retiring Grants Stack and answering the question on deciding on what Software/Platform(s) to use;
We could start with a research RFP for Communities and DAOs to research what platforms and funding tools or solutions to use for GG24, and then we could narrow it down to the top 3 for each funding category and then put it out to a vote in governance.

The detailed research results from these DAOS, would inform Gitcoin Citizens on the preferred tool to adopt and vote “Yes” or ‘No’ on.

In Redefining Gitcoin Grants, I think we can consider a multi-chain expansion, there are lots of ecosystems that don’t have a public good arm or a public good funding strategy or platform and since Gitcoin 3.0 is about being the Schelling Point for funding builders, I think it can also be the schelling point for funding Public Goods activities in ecosystems like Bitcoin L2s, Solana, cosmos and many others.

I’m still digesting thoughts in the post and would make comments here as I come back to read the post again.

2 Likes
3

Thanks @deltajuliet! I appreciate this proposal and the outline of how Allo could plug in to support in this next critical phase.

It’s an important step (something we haven’t always done too well at Gitcoin in the past few years) to really bring the community closer into the decision-making processes within the DAO. And especially because we’re at such a large inflection point right now, I’m personally excited to see how more of our ecosystem will begin to support our mission in much more tactical ways. Already seeing the momentum here!

But with anything that relates to research, information gathering etc, having a structured container to aggregate the learnings is key. I’m on board.

3 Likes
4

I would love to say I’m excited about this new path and ready to contribute. What’s tempering my excitement is the burnout I felt from contributing to Allo Capital in Q1. This mainly came from this friction around community engagement and supporting the builders being promoted as key tenant of Allo Capital but what has manifested imo is an insular culture where a nebulous cloud seems to be surrounding everything giving unclarity to builders, creating jadedness, reducing community cohesion and creating burnout.

I feel the echoing of community engagement and governance has been occurring for months but in reality the current structure of Gitcoin is centralized and top down. My sense is Gitcoin is trying to stay aligned with past values shared especially when it became a DAO but the reality is market conditions, lack of cohesion and others things I’m not privy to have created a centralized org.

That all to say I’m still bullish on Gitcoin and will contribute in all aspects I can as a Steward of the Greenpill Network/Dev Guild and Allominati member.

I’m just trying to gather the energy to just back into the rodeo.

2 Likes
5

Can you say more about this nebulous cloud and insularity? From my POV, Allo.Capital has really focused on being transparent and open about the explorations of the design space. Everything thats happening that is important is being published to https://www.youtube.com/@Allo.Capital and https://research.allo.capital/ and/or to the telegram. . Maybe its too much information and hard to find the signal in all of it?

1 Like
6

Starting here I 100% feel it’s too much info and trying to keep up with all the ideas shared from the Allo Capital side is exhausting.

I feel the community is being sent a ton of info and then has no space to digest it as a community and come to alignment.

What has been happening is we create our own space to discuss these things as Allo Builders and try to sense make ourselves and while doing that are often coming back to uncertainty about what Allo Capital is focused on and where we can get involved. Which then spurns us to focus outside of Allo Capital and create synergy amongst ourselves as builders and to date the discussions have been great and helped form closer bonds.

Another aspect is how the DAO design contest was handled I think how it was concluded left people unclear on next steps and jaded as there were no scores for the proposal or feedback for all of them, so many just feel like they put their hard efforts into something just sent into the ether. I can personally attest this having talked to people who made submissions. I understand there were more proposals than expected and it’s big effort so I went out of my way to create a table of all proposal and attempt to categorize them and wanted to support community engagement with the proposals, where the community can do the work of providing feedback for the 1st pass then Allo core team the 2nd.

The nebulous cloud/insularity comes from a couple things, 1st the financial unclarity, from my understanding a proposal passed in the Gitcoin DAO to seed Allo Capital with funds did that happened? The only funding discussed is money raised from the patron NFT sales. If this is all the funding how is Allo Capital planning to raise funds and if not what’s the other budget being allocated to? Another aspect is I joined a research call which I was only able to join via a lettuce meet shared in a reply on the forum. The call was said to be recurring but since then it’s either stopped or I’m no longer on the invite list.

To conclude I think it’s combination of too much information and lack of focus on community OS. This is creating a dynamic where the community is trying to sense make with too much information which generates thoughts/ideas which then have no space to be fleshed out and reach alignment.

To solve this I believe it’s finding balance between what is shared and the space to discuss.

What that concretely looks like:

  • Less ideation/proposal posts on the forum from Allo Capital core team
  • More recurring spaces for discussions and community building
  • More polls, surveys etc to get community signal and sentiment. For ex, On a scale of 1 (bad) to 10 (great) how do you feel about the current direction of Allo Capital?
  • If funds are available empower community members to lead aspects of the community OS with calls, workshops, etc.
6 Likes
7

ACK. Thanks for the candid feedback Afo. I move we take this over to some Allo spaces to figure out how to cohere from here, and focus this thread back on the Gitcoin 3.0 strategy sprint.

3 Likes
8

In favor of a strategic sprint like this. What would be critical from my POV is mapping out which stakeholders should participate in (which elements of) the sprint to ensure the optimal outcome.

I’m eager to play a role, both as a long-time Gitcoin power donor/user and steward of CeloPG.

3 Likes
9

Thank you @deltajuliet for opening this discussion on Gitcoin 3.0 and the strategy sprint.

Following up on a conversation with @owocki earlier this week and speaking on behalf of DAOstar (https://daostar.org/), one of the primary challenges the Gitcoin 3.0 roadmap will face is in building the necessary decision-making and feedback loops to evolve funding experiments into real, sustainable impact. To this end, we’d like to explore integrating DAOIP-5, DAOstar’s grant metadata standard, as a part of Gitcoin 3.0’s technical infrastructure.

DAOIP-5 structures, organizes, and aggregates data generated by Web3 grant programs during funding cycles, allowing different systems speak the same language and powering ecosystem-wide analytics and reporting. A backend data standard and aggregation tool like DAOIP-5 could support mechanism selection, domain allocator accountability, and community-led decision making through transparent, data-driven performance evaluation and reporting. We’re happy to continue this conversation during the strategy sprint, helping Gitcoin define what infrastructure is needed to power future rounds and develop a more competitive, pluralistic funding ecosystem.

We believe that a lack of standardized evaluation frameworks, as well as data collection and analysis difficulties, are currently the biggest barriers to impact within Web3 grants and capital allocation. We’re excited to collaborate with Gitcoin to address these problems and create a more vibrant builder ecosystem on Ethereum.

A few useful links to get started:

3 Likes
10

I’ve forked Rena’s strategy sprint and come up w my own specification for what I think we should be focused on. More details here.

1 Like