Gitcoin Grants 24: Strategic Sense Making Framework

[MathildaDV]

Gitcoin Grants 24: Strategic Sense Making Framework

TLDR

Here the TLDR of the sensemaking structure of GG24:

• Purpose: Identify Ethereum’s most meaningful, urgent, and solvable problems through structured community research.
• Approach: Contributors write reports analyzing a problem’s significance, fundability ($50K+), and whether Gitcoin can uniquely help solve it.
• Criteria: Problems must offer genuine user impact, address root causes (not hype), and pass a “satisfaction test” six months later.
• Validation Tools: Community input, expert feedback, and visibility tests (e.g., can it attract funding or support from ecosystem leaders like Vitalik).
• Output: The best sensemaking reports define domains for GG24 and guide which campaigns get executed.
• Why it matters: This process ensures Gitcoin funds what truly matters—not just what trends—by aligning capital with meaning.

Overview

Gitcoin Grants 24 (GG24) will implement a structured, five-phase approach to revitalize our impact in the Ethereum ecosystem:

1. Sensemaking: Identifying high-impact problem areas through rigorous analysis and validating them through fundraising potential and visibility tests
2. Establishing Domains: Creating specific focus areas through a transparent, community-driven process
3. Campaign Design: Developing targeted funding outcomes tailored to each domain
4. Campaign Execution: Implementing the designed campaigns effectively
5. Retrospective Analysis: Learning from outcomes to improve future rounds

This framework balances structured methodology with practical market validation, ensuring we focus our efforts where we can make the greatest impact while securing the necessary resources and visibility.

Why This Framework Matters

Dedicated Domain Allocation (DDA) is the core function that will drive Gitcoin Grants moving forward. We’re building a system that identifies the most pressing challenges in Ethereum and creates effective mechanisms to address them.

Gall’s Law as Our Guiding Principle

Following Gall’s Law—“All complex systems that work evolved from simpler systems that work”—we’re starting with a minimal, robust foundation that can evolve over time.

What This Process Ensures

Our framework is designed to ensure that:

• We identify genuinely important problems
• We verify our ability to raise funds for these problems
• We attract high-profile advocates to maximize visibility and impact
• We create sustainable funding mechanisms with clear outcomes
• We learn systematically from each round

Phase 1: Sensemaking

Sensemaking is about identifying high-impact areas where Gitcoin can make a meaningful difference. This phase involves:

Problem Identification: Researching Ethereum’s most pressing challenges through multiple methodologies

Practical Validation: Testing whether potential domains can:

• Attract funding from sponsors and ecosystem partners
• Generate visibility through endorsement from influential figures (e.g., Vitalik Buterin)

Theory of Change: Establishing how Gitcoin’s interventions could meaningfully address these challenges

Key Diligence Questions

• Can Gitcoin (or the networks around it) add unique value in this area?
• Is this problem better solved by a network or a hierarchy?
• Is this an immediate problem or one emerging in the next 6-12 months or something further out?
• Can we realistically raise money, or have impact, for this domain?

Areas of Exploration (AoE)

The sensemaking stage is focused around “Areas of Exploration” (AoE). The first and only AoE for GG24 is:

“What are Ethereum’s biggest problems?”

Requirements for Sensemakers

Why sensemake?

• Opportunity to shape the future of the ecosystem
• Raise/deploy $$
• Opportunity to build connections
• Opportunity to build distribution

Eligibility

• All Gitcoin community members are empowered to participate in sensemaking and pitch domains for GG24.
• GTC Stewards are responsible for driving ratification of domains for GG24
• Reports must be published to the Gitcoin forum by July 18, 2025.

Iterative Sensemaking Process

Phase 1A: Submission of Problem Briefs (June 11 – July 18)

• Community members submit problem briefs (800–1,200 words).
• No assumption that the brief is final—these are inputs, not conclusions.
• Briefs are encouraged to use tags and short summaries for easier synthesis.

Phase 1B: Synthesis & Alignment (July 18 – August 1)

• Gitcoin + stewards cluster briefs into 4–6 emerging domains using thematic tagging and validation criteria.
• Community reviews domains through a platform that will give us the ability to extend out to a more broad audience decision making versus just centering on GTC holders (more info to follow).

Report Requirements: Each sensemaking report must include (800-1,200 words total):

Please COPY & USE this template when drafting your report.

Evaluation Criteria: Meaning vs. Engagement

Reports will be evaluated using our “meaning awareness” framework (inspired by Kevin Owocki’s research on distinguishing authentic meaning from manufactured significance):

Primary Questions:

1. Genuine Impact: Will solving this problem create lasting value for Ethereum users, not just generate attention?
2. Deep vs. Surface: Does this address root causes or just symptoms that generate buzz?
3. Satisfaction Test: Will people be glad we funded this six months later, even if it’s no longer trending?
4. Past Performance: Those who have already participated as Community Rounds in GG will have their success and performance taken into account for GG24 and beyond.

Secondary Validation:

4. Fundability: Can we raise $ 50 K+ with identified sponsors?
5. Unique Value: Can Gitcoin add something unique that existing solutions don’t provide?

Note: Problems that optimize for visibility or engagement without meaningful impact will be deprioritized, even if they attract attention.

Submission Format

• Length: 800-1200 words total
  Please COPY & USE this template when drafting your report.
• Format: Markdown format, published to Gitcoin forum
• Deadline: July 18, 2025

Success Measurement Framework

For each domain selected for GG24, success will be measured using the following metrics:

• Milestone Success Rate = (# of milestones achieved ÷ total funded milestones). Disaggregate by domain and intervention type.
• Total funds raised (minimum $50K target per domain)
• Active Retention Rate (ARR) at 3 and 6 months: % of projects with consistent use or updates after initial funding.
• Net Impact Score (NIS): A structured 1-10 scale with open-text rationale, gathered from funders, builders, and users. Weight scores differently (e.g., users 2x). Require explanation for scores <5 or >8.

Secondary Metrics:

• Unique contributor diversity
• Track whether projects continue creating value post-funding period
• Quality of project outcomes (not just application volume)
• Long-term sustainability indicators

Note: We will not optimize for metrics that can be gamed (social media engagement, application quantity) if they don’t correlate with meaningful impact.

Timeline

Phase 1: Submission of Problem Briefs - June 11, 2025 to July 18, 2025
Phase 2: Synthesis & Alignment - July 19 - August 1, 2025

Sensemaking Szn is open to the community to participate in. Gitcoin will host sensemaking sessions through Twitter Spaces, workshops, etc. This schedule will be released on our channels as the szn progresses.

Compensation

We will establish a $10k bounty, that will be split amongst the top voted on reports that meet all eligibility criteria. Voting will be done through the same voting platform we will use for domain selection.

Next Steps

As we implement this framework and welcome the community’s input, we will:

1. Finalize the infrastructure for seamless round execution
2. Detail how GTC accrues value throughout this process
3. Refine the methodology for GG25 based on our learnings
4. Establish clear communication channels for ongoing feedback

Together, this approach positions Gitcoin to deliver meaningful impact in 2025 while laying the groundwork for even more ambitious efforts in the future.

Please drop your feedback!

[rohit]

I like the intentionality and bottoms-up approach in defining the domains. Irrespective of the voting results, I am certain that the reports will go a long way in driving awareness on some of the key topics across the Ethereum ecosystem.

I had a question on the area of exploration. This distinction is probably largely academic, but I thought I would clarify. I am specifically interested in exploring if the set of problems represented by (b) are eligible domains for GG24 (assuming they pass the evaluation criteria).

Statement a: “What are Ethereum’s biggest problems?”
Statement b: “What are some of the biggest problems Ethereum is primed to solve?”

As an example, climate accountability and transparent funding flows are not Ethereum’s core problems, but Ethereum’s tooling makes it uniquely suited to help solve them. There are probably a few other real-world domains like this that aren’t strictly internal to Ethereum’s protocol or developer/user experience.

Thanks again for pushing this approach forward. Excited to see how it evolves.

[openlittermap]

This is a great opportunity to reflect on the future of gitcoin & ethereum.

I have been in ethereum since the original DAO in 2015 which was probably the most inspiring movement I have ever been a part of. There was talk of funding renewable energy plants and generating passive income returns for token holders. The space was full of new and exciting concepts. I believe that gitcoin has remerged as the platform to facilitate that original sentiment and this is a wonderful opportunity for realignment.

I would like to reawaken that sense of purpose. I think ethereums biggest problems have become relevance and legitimacy. By identifying cost-effective ways to make a high and scaleable impact, we can demonstrate to the world what these emerging tools are capable of.

I would like for citizen science and the tokenisation of impact mapping to become a bigger part of the gitcoin, crypto and web3 narrative. These are 21st century ideals that require innovative 21st century frameworks like gitcoin to help seed and establish them.

I am here for it.
Desci only!

Cheers,

Seán

[maets23]

@MathildaDV

Sensemaking: Identifying high-impact problem areas through rigorous analysis and validating them through fundraising potential and visibility tests

@owocki

Why Sensemaking Matters More in Complex Environments

Traditional analytical approaches fail in complex environments because they assume predictability and linear relationships. You can’t analyze your way to understanding emergence or non-linear effects.

Sensemaking works because it assumes uncertainty and focuses on pattern recognition rather than prediction. Instead of trying to forecast the future, you try to understand current dynamics and adapt accordingly.

I am very worried. The Gitcoin Grants 24 framework, is counter to collective sensemaking as described by @owocki .

These quotes illustrate this. The Gitcoin Grants 24 is a traditional analytical approach that @ococki says “will fail because they assume predictability and linear relationships.”

I Think a new Gitcoin grants 24 framework should be developed that uses the methods described in the "Mastering Sensemaking…discussion.

Here is a possible workflow.

1. Collecting Diverse Information that answers the question: “What are ethereum’s biggest problems?”
   a. Identify a representative group from the community (Sortition), say 200 members.
   b. Ask each selected member to write paragraph long descriptions of 3 problems based on their point of view in the ethereum eco-system. (Survey or AI facilitator)

Now we would have 600 problems that are from diverse sources.

@owocki

Sensemaking assumes you need to first figure out what the problem actually is - or whether there even is a problem.

2. Based on the 600 ideas, use an algorithm to identify the highest priority problems based on a consensus point. Also determine duplicates or quasi-duplicates. This will “first figure out what the problem actually is - or whether there even is a problem.”

At the end of this process we would identify the top problems (and authors) that gitcoin should focus on,

3. then…following the Karl Weick advise run this process as a retrospective every 3 or 6 months.

@owocki

Karl Weick, one of the pioneering researchers in this field, described it as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing.”

[owocki]

I am very worried. The Gitcoin Grants 24 framework, is counter to collective sensemaking as described by @owocki .

my feeling is that sensemaking szn is pretty bottoms-up and choose your own adventure. people are free to come up with their own sensemaking process and submit them. my sense is the people are free to explore any part of the [GITCOIN 3.0] 🌳 The Epistemological Tree of GG24 - leaves, branches, trunks. lmk if i am mistaken @MathildaDV

[MathildaDV]

You’re not mistaken, no @owocki! IMO mine and Owocki’s posts are aligned. The above framework is to help guide everyone participating in sensemaking szn to have consistency amongst all reports coming in. I may be a bit unclear what in this framework you would like to change @maets23. For GG24, we decided to keep it fairly simple to start with. Beyond that, we can scale further and introduce a bit more complexity. LMK if this doesn’t make sense, though!

[MathildaDV]

Thank you for your continued valuable input, @rohit. I have always appreciated your perspective. I think the framing of what you’re asking makes a lot of sense! I would not be opposed to allow this to be eligible, but I’m also curious about what @owocki thinks here!

IMHO we should lean into starting GG24 a bit more broadly and experimental so that we can create further focused structure from there as we begin looking forward to GG25.

[Tane]

We appreciate the thoughtful design and ambition behind the Strategic Sense Making Framework for GG24. The intent to align Gitcoin’s capital with Ethereum’s most pressing and solvable problems is both timely and necessary, especially as the ecosystem seeks to reclaim its relevance and legitimacy.

A key issue that stands out is whether the framework’s structured approach can truly accommodate the complexity and unpredictability of the Ethereum ecosystem. As @maets23 points out, we feel the current approach does not sufficiently incorporate these iterative nature of sense making. The method of submitting a report once and incrementally adjusting or selecting domains based on it appears limited. Therefore, as @maets23 suggests, dividing the process into smaller, more iterative steps to better facilitate community inputs would be beneficial.

Additionally, there is another reason why we find the report-submission-and-evaluation format challenging. This viewpoint is informed by our experience with Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS), a decentralized objective-setting initiative. Although that process is still ongoing, we’ve learned that subtle differences in individual priorities, the data they regularly engage with, and implicit assumptions about trends lead to discrepancies in understanding. Specifically, when comparing abstractly defined issues (e.g., issue A versus issue B), aligning and prioritizing effectively becomes increasingly difficult as abstraction increases. Simply submitting reports is insufficient. We should integrate mechanisms like facilitated workshops or structured polling (i.e. weighted voting for aligning domain priority) after the initial report submissions, enabling effective alignment and prioritization. We believe there is still room to refine the design of this aspect of the process.

Finally, we’re concerned about the incentives for preparing these reports. In other DAOs, experts who typically do not interact regularly with the DAO have clear incentives: they either provide specific services following problem identification, or they respond to explicitly commissioned research tasks with compensation. Is there anything similar envisioned here? If Dedicated Domain Allocation (DDA) already has a clear compensation structure, then submitting these reports could be positioned as an opportunity for domain advocates to showcase their expertise. However, at present, incentive structures seem unclear, relying significantly on goodwill alone. This ambiguity might limit the amount and quality of valuable inputs we can attract. In this case, we believe it is valuable to make it clear what kind of (or how much) incentive could be provided to those with meaningful report submission.

[MathildaDV]

@MathildaDV

Past Performance: Those who have already participated as Community Rounds in GG will have their success and performance taken into account for GG24 and beyond.

UPDATE: Coming out of a Gitcoin 3.0 Twitter Space, @LuukDAO had asked whether we will be taking past Community Round performance into account in this new structure. It would be a miss IMHO if we didn’t, therefore I have updated the evaluation criteria.

[MathildaDV]

Thank you for this feedback! Based on this and others, we recognize the need to make GG24’s sensemaking phase more iterative, accessible, and aligned with real-world complexity. We’ll consider adjusting the framework. Expect a follow-up shortly outlining some refinements in more detail.

[owocki]

@MathildaDV

thanks for being so on top of being responsive to the community! i think its key if were going to sensemake about ethereums biggest problems

keep the constructive feedback coming everyone!

if anyone wants feedback on their sensemaking initiative, feel free to post about it on this thread and im happy to and give feedback where i think i can add value.!

[MathildaDV]

Thank you to everyone for your valuable feedback on this post. The key points that I took away from the feedback is that 1) this framework needs to be a bit more simplified, 2) there is no real incentive structure for participation, and 3) it’s a little confusing.

I hope that the above updates (adding compensation, simplifying the timeline and flow of expectations and providing a report template) will add clarity and drive these conversations forward constructively.

We’re building this ship as we’re going, so I appreciate everyone’s input and guidance!

[maets23]

Hi all,

I m not sure how to make my point here. However here it is.

A crowd’s wisdom is very difficult to capture.

Capturing it is counter-intuitive. Often exactly opposite to what is considered usual. We all think, If we want community input, we should have a meeting or open a forum. Seems obvious. Unfortunately this gold standard paradigm is repeatedly proven to lead to poor judgements.

This is probably counter to your core beliefs. Particularly if you believe in open discussion and voting consensus. But it doesn’t change the facts.

Here is what the literature states to harness the magic of wisdom of crowds:

Diversity of opinion

Decentralized with local knowledge

Independent judgement

Lastly

Unbiased Aggregation

Here is a potential solution:

Every 6 months, ask the community to answer the question: “what are ethereum’s 3 biggest problems, from your point of view?” Pls write 3 Tldr paragraphs.

All responses and author’s are hidden from view until after the aggregation.

Target 200 responses by offering $100us incentive.

Collate all responses. Determine the unbiased aggregation. Simscore was created for this purpose.

A list of the 4-5 biggest problems will be more accurate than the responses from any individual contributor.

If hope this is clear. Wisdom of crowds is much more powerful than open crowd consensus. Yet, we never move away for open crowd consensus

[deltajuliet]

Thanks @maets23

Can you give a more concise/clear response to the framework?

ask the community to answer the question: “what are ethereum’s 3 biggest problems, from your point of view?”

This is what the current framework is. As @Hydrapad has submitted here.

[zhgnv]

Hi @deltajuliet ,

It looks like Hydrapad’s report was generated by LLM based on Mathilda’s template, with the primary goal of selling Hydrapad’s solution.

Tools Used:

• Root cause analysis of startup failure metrics
• Comparative study of fundraising mechanisms (SAFTs, ICOs, bonded curves)
• On-chain liquidity analysis (Dune, DeFiLlama)

Source	Key Finding	Severity
Dune Analytics	68% presale tokens crash >90%	Critical
GG19 - 23	92% founders lack mentor access	High
Hydrapad	[value proposition]	Solution

Data clustered around 3 themes:

• Capital Access: Fragmented tools increase failure rates.
• Operational Burden: Compliance/KYC slows launches.
• Liquidity Mismatch: Static presales cause volatility.

This is as far from complexity-informed sensemaking that @owocki described as possible.

Unfortunately the current framework is vulnerable to this kind of “sensemaking through AI-generated reports”. If Gitcoin wants to address Ethereum ecosystem as a complex environment (which it is), it’s important to implement the “probe-sense-respond” approach and make sure that reports are not about “solving problems”, incl. pitches or self-advertising. Sensemaking isn’t about creating the proposals for what should be done, but rather understanding the environment.

A few members of Sensemaking Scenius (including myself) have collaborated on this proposal: [Gitcoin 3.0] Complexity-Informed Sensemaking Pilot

We would really appreciate your feedback. Our intention is not to challenge the existing framework, but rather to invite the Gitcoin community to a serious conversation about sensemaking.

[Hydrapad]

@zhgnv appreciate your criticism on the subject. Selling Hydrapad as solution wasn’t the primary goal but as a complementary option. I can remove hydrapad selling points from the proposal if that becomes an issue.

[dustyoldduke]

I strongly support the strategic direction towards funding public goods through decentralized community rounds, which is an essential evolution for Gitcoin Grants 2024. However, I believe the current approach could benefit from greater flexibility and more community-driven methods to truly address Ethereum’s most urgent and solvable problems. While predefined problem briefs are important, I propose that we introduce real-time feedback sessions and community-driven workshops. These workshops would allow for organic idea generation and collaboration, ensuring that we are considering a wide range of perspectives. By focusing on identifying the most impactful challenges in Ethereum and using AI-driven tools to tag and categorize emerging issues, we can ensure the inclusivity and transparency of the entire process.

Additionally, the focus on retroactive funding is a promising direction, but I suggest we further support mature builders by implementing metrics-driven funding mechanisms. This would ensure that resources are allocated not only to early-stage initiatives but also to projects with proven impact. Mature builders, who have already demonstrated success, should receive funding based on measurable outcomes and sustainable results, which will drive long-term sustainability and systemic growth across Ethereum’s ecosystem.

Finally, I would recommend expanding Gitcoin’s funding mechanisms to support niche areas like climate action, digital privacy, and decentralized science. These domains not only align with Ethereum’s potential but are also critical for addressing issues often overlooked by traditional funding models. By leveraging Ethereum’s capabilities, Gitcoin can provide innovative solutions to challenges that have long been neglected by mainstream initiatives, positioning itself as a true leader in public goods funding.

I believe this approach will allow Gitcoin to remain at the forefront of public goods funding while fostering a more decentralized, inclusive, and impact-driven ecosystem. By ensuring that we are supporting builders at all stages of their development, we can create an environment where innovation thrives, not just for today, but for the long term.

[maets23]

Hi Deltajuliet,

1. Collective Sensemaking.

On a semi-annual basis,

1.1 Identify a representative group of 200 participants from the Ethereum EcoSystem (Similar to Sortition).
1.2 Ask the 200 participants the following question: What are Ethereum’s top 3 biggest problems? (400-500 words)
1.3 Determine an unbiased aggregation of the responses.

1.1 is designed to ensure diversity and decentralization. If we allow people to self-select, we undermine the Wisdom of Crowds method, which insists on diversity and local knowledge. Unfortunately a large part of this effort will be chasing laggards that do not provide answers

1.2 The participants should submit their answers to the question independently without seeing or interacting with anyone else’s answers. By providing 3 answers it allows each participant a little more freedom. I would suggest a modification to this Forum so that answers are written in the forum, but hidden until the after the deadline. Following this step, we will have approximately 600 answers from a diverse, decentralized and independent group…key tenets of wisdom of crowds tech.

1.3 My suggestion is to use an algorithm to determine the top 5 or 6 problems from the list of 600 answers. This will reduce variability as the algorithm only provides a single analysis that would be transparent, auditable etc. However literature also suggestes manual synthesis can be effective as long as the analyst (s) are independent with no skin in the game.

At this point there would be 5-6 problems that can go onto next steps such as validation, cynfin analysis, dda and execution.

By doing collective sensemaking every 6 months, we will see if problems vary over time, whether solutions are working (ie problem not in top 5 anymore, etc.) Very positive iterative loop that likely can replace the retrospectives.

[skylessdev]

Hi all! Adding a piece to this Strategic Sensemaking stream: one domain I see underexplored is proof of meaning itself.

Skyla is an agent framework that turns symbolic state transitions — like an AI’s narrative, alignment, or interpretive shifts — into recursive zero-knowledge proofs. Instead of debating “what matters” only after the fact, we can cryptographically prove how meaning evolves.

We’re testing this now with Nythaerna (a narrative AI) to anchor a living story as a verifiable proof chain — the first practical demo of recursive symbolic continuity settling to Ethereum or any neutral DA layer.

This feels well aligned with a GG24 domain around Meaning Awareness + ZK-backed Interpretive Continuity — anchoring subjective meaning in objective proofs for cross-agent interfacing and as a coordination primitive in the long run:

• Federated Interpretation: Multiple validators can verify the same symbolic state through different relational lenses
• Cross-Agent Bridges: Authenticated identity portability across systems while preserving narrative autonomy

If anyone is building in this direction, I’d love to contribute Skyla’s spec, early tests, and recursive architecture to help evolve it further.

Thanks for opening this space. Excited to help shape what emerges.

— Maggie
github: skylessdev/skyla