Gitcoin Governance Council Term 2 - Community Vote

Sov · July 16, 2025, 11:07am

The Governance Council completed its first term and has published a retrospective assessment of their performance against the original mandate established in March 2025.

The council was initially created to bring “structure, accountability, and decentralization” to governance through facilitating governance processes, supporting decentralization efforts, stewarding the DAO Constitution, and enhancing transparency.

Term 1 Assessment

The retrospective documents both successes and challenges during the 3.5-month term:

Challenges Identified:

Token delegation delays prevented full participation until May
Communication gaps between council and core team
No designated council coordinator for deliverable tracking
External organizational transitions (Allo Capital spinout, Grants Labs shutdown) created additional complexity
Zero progress on constitutional development due to unclear guidance and scope

Achievements Noted:

GG23 coordination achieved 100% participation through Grant Ships
Successful vote participation once delegations were completed
Cross-ecosystem governance insights provided to the community
Voting power distribution helped reduce quorum dependency on large token holders

Proposed Term 2 Framework

Based on Term 1 lessons learned, the retrospective outlines a refined approach for Term 2 (August - December 2025):

Enhanced Operational Structure:

Self designate a council coordinator for deliverable tracking and core team coordination
Improved communication framework to prevent reactive decision-making

Updated Deliverables:

Process Facilitation: Enhanced forum participation, ensuring proposals and posts on the forum receive adequate discussion and feedback
Transparency Enhancement: Quarterly governance updates published on schedule (October 15, January 15)
Community Engagement: Documented council input on high-impact proposals and partnerships.

Success Metrics:

100% of votes meet quorum
All quarterly updates published on schedule
Improved forum engagement and moderation coverage

The constitutional development mandate has been removed from Term 2 scope to better align deliverables with available resources and community priorities.

The Vote

Based on the retrospective findings and community feedback, we will be taking this to a vote with two options:

Continue: Proceed with Term 2 using all five current members (Wasabi, Ivan Molto, SEEDGov, PGov, Tane) and the enhanced operational framework
Discontinue: End the council program and revert to the current steward-led governance model

All five current members have committed to serving Term 2 if approved. The decision maintains the existing team composition rather than opening new nominations, allowing the group to apply lessons learned from Term 1 immediately.

If discontinued, governance will return to ad hoc coordination by active stewards, with lessons learned from the council experiment documented for future reference.

Community Input

The retrospective provides analysis of what worked, what didn’t, and proposed solutions for moving forward. The original charter outlines the initial vision and expectations that guided Term 1.

We encourage the community to review both documents and provide feedback on whether the proposed Term 2 framework adequately addresses the structural issues identified in Term 1, and whether a structured council approach can deliver meaningful improvements to Gitcoin’s governance effectiveness.

Thanks for your consideration!

SEEDGov · July 23, 2025, 2:59pm

As members of the Council, we would be more than happy to get the second term approved. Like we said in the retro, the first term coincided with a rather turbulent time for Gitcoin, where immense changes were happening one after the other. Nevertheless, we really appreciate the conversation that we had with the other members and the Gitcoin team, when we could iron out every detail to have a successful second term. Looking forward to the community feedback!

ivanmolto · July 24, 2025, 10:18pm

Hey Gitcoin community,

As a member of the Council, I want to personally thank everyone who’s taken the time to read the Term 1 retrospective and hopefully engage with the upcoming vote on Term 2.

Term 1 was an experiment in bringing more structure and transparency to Gitcoin governance. While it wasn’t perfect, I’m proud of what we were able to accomplish, especially under the constraints and growing pains of spinning up a new model.

I believe Term 2 is our chance to apply the lessons from Term 1 with more clarity, accountability, and better communication between the Council and the broader ecosystem.

I’m committed to continuing this work if the community chooses to move forward. We’ve built trust and rhythm as a team, and I think we’re in a much better position now to deliver value through governance facilitation, proposal vetting, regular transparency updates, and more.

That said — this is your DAO. I encourage all of you to review the retrospective, the original Term 1, and the Term 2, then share your thoughts or vote accordingly.

Looking forward to hearing what the community thinks.

wasabi · July 25, 2025, 3:11pm

i would like to echo @ivanmolto and @SEEDGov and add a different POV to the mix.

Today more than ever there’s a huge disconnect between the Top and the Bottom of the Builders Funnel, having people that know first hand the reality of many builders across the world, I think that keeping the Committee is a good investment that can reap benefits in value in areas that aren’t too easy to measure, but still are very important.

The council is very close and have its ears in the Community because besides Council Members, we’re all builders developing projects that have the potential to shape narratives.

deltajuliet · July 25, 2025, 8:52pm

After reading the retro and the assessments & comments here, I won’t be voting in favor of this program at this time without clear outcomes laid out for the council and the community.

The deliverables above are essentially ‘paid community participation + reporting’ and while it has been useful (regardless in delay of token delegation) there were further defined improvements we were looking to achieve in this first term, and across the board I see below passing marks. As pointed out by @SEEDGov:

Stewarding the DAO Constitution: F Grade. Zero progress made. This mandate was hindered by a lack of specific guidance on constitutional priorities and an unclear scope definition from core team coordination. This situation left us without clear direction on which constitutional issues to address and how to make progress on this matter.

This council was specifically elected to prove we can update our governance in a decentralized way - not inside out as it has been. I don’t think that pointing to the core team as a failure point for not doing a given improvement embraces that ethos or shows any initiative on the council’s part to even find out what these problems are.

With that being said … I’d love to see some actionable outcomes for the 2nd term, and always open to having my mind changed. I think that there is value in having a council to spearhead our governance initiatives and as we move into the future of Gitcoin, I’d love to see participation expand and be worthwhile for every member of our community.

MathildaDV · July 29, 2025, 4:41am

Thanks for the honest retrospective and the summary on the first term. It’s been great to work closely with this council. From my POV, I think having more external active voters within our governance is very valuable, but something I would need to see more of in Term 2 is more than just community engagement forum participation. I wonder if there is a lightweight version of ensuring this community participation that you outlined gets met, but that it can be enhanced to where the council has more of a stage to provide feedback on processes as well as recommendations on enhancements?

But I also might not be fully understanding the below as the deliverables are outlined at a very high level instead of being too granular.