Gitcoin Round 11 Matching Pool Allocations 🤖

Gitcoin GR11 Matching Pool Allocations :robot:


This proposal looks to discuss and finalize how funding allocations from the Gitcoin Grants Round 11 Matching Pool are distributed. After a successful Grants round 10 proposal this proposal aims to continue to drive forward community owned decesions on Gitcoin Grants rounds.


As previously outlined, the distribution of the Matching Pool to different Grants categories had previously been handled by the Gitcoin Core team (rounds 1-5), and later in consultation with the Funders League (rounds 6-9). Round 10 saw the first distribution based on GTC governance and we look to continue this with GR11.

The GR10 matching pool proposal saw over 2 million GTC vote on Snapshot, with over 1000 unique voters participating.


Gitcoin Stewards and the wider community played a critical role in the governance and operation of GR10, and the move to this more decentralized organisational structure was fruitful in terms of increasing participation and ultimately getting more funding into the hands of those building for public goods.

Taking point on the governance of the Matching Pool allows Stewards and by proxy, the wider community to have a meaningful impact on the allocation of grants, without drastically altering the underlying foundation that has worked so well to date.

In GR10, the $700k matching pool was allocated as follows:

  • Infrastructure: 30%
  • Dapp Tech: 25%
  • Community: 20%
  • Latin America 10%
  • NFTs: 7.5%
  • dGov: 7.5%

There was also an additonal $50k side round added later via another Snapshot vote, to fund the ‘Gitcoin builds GitcoinDAO’ round.


Through discussion on this proposal and an eventual Snapshot vote, one of the following two options will be selected as the matching pool breakdown for Round 11.

Round 11 currently has $800k allocated to matching, though that may increase with the addition of new sponsors. The Gitcoin Core team has already signalled that there may be additional “side rounds” introduced during GR11 that will not use Matching Pool funds, and will be run during the round. These side rounds will bring additional funding to the round from unique sponsors like the Gitcoin building GitcoinDAO side round in GR10.

Option 1:

Distribute the matching pool based on the following breakdown. These allocations are proposed by the Gitcoin Core team alongside :fire:_ :fire:.

  • Infrastructure: 25%
  • Dapp Tech: 25%
  • Community: 20%
  • NFT Tech: 10%
  • dGov: 7.5%
  • Africa: 7.5%
  • Latin America: 5%

The goal of this new breakdown offers key aspects:

  • Reduce the Latin America category to determine if that community can sustain development without as much regional support. This was done for the South East Asia round and is the last round we will directly support this region.
  • Formally add the African region to jump start that community like we have done with the SE Asia region and LatAm region.

Option 2:

Gitcoin Stewards and wider community decide on a new matching breakdown. We encourage any Steward or community member to submit their own matching pool breakdown!

Please submit your proposal to the forum this week so that the community has sufficient time to vote before the round begins!


  • Continue to give GTC governance the power to ratify the direction of matching funds.
  • Allow the community to have ownership over which pools receive the most matching.


  • Reduce convenience of distribution in favor of a more decentralized distribution process.


Once we have gathered feedback on both this and other proposals, :fire:_ :fire: will gather all formal proposals and submit a Snapshot vote to decide which to move forward with.

Please do not submit a snapshot vote for your proposal specifically! This just adds confusion and makes it harder for the community’s voice to be heard effectively.


following three options? I only see Option 1, and open Option 2. No Option 3 actually.


Nice catch @bobjiang !

Updated :unicorn:

What about adding “Middle East” as an incentivized region.

In most perspective Middle East has similar conditions with Africa or Latin America. Ecosystem development in ME should be incentivized since the ppl or project from the ME seem separated from the European/US communities due to the language/networking barrier.

In the last round, we dropped “Asia” and added “Latin America” to see “if that community can sustain development without regional support.”

Any thoughts of report or research showing what happened in the end, before deciding to continue the same allocation?

1 Like

This is a great question. Here are details from the round for those in SE Asia round"

Total amount in GR8 and GR9 are listed. GR10 did not have a round (so its more messy to calculate). GR10 we grabbed the amounts, per category, for the Grants with the region of SE Asia.

tl;dr -
$150,641 in GR8 to SE Asia Grants
$228,166 in GR9 to SE Asia Grants
$314,411 in GR10 to SE Asia Grants

GR8 to GR9 saw a big increase in total funds. GR9 to GR10 saw a mostly flat change in community funding amount. This tells me, the community did in fact support the SE Asia grants without having a dedicated matching pool as it grew at a larger rate than the total pool.

These seeds (at first glance) seem to help start communities, and after they are started, the funding is less necessary (using SE Asia as our proof point).


Thank you for the info. Do you have a relative share of each category? It’s great that the total contribution of the specific category increased but I also assume but the total contribution is increasing in each round so the share could be a lot lower.

In fact, can I see the source of the data assuming they are no confidential info. Would be good to have full transparency on the grant distribution data so people can do various different analysis.

Just to summarize the proposed changes for option 1 for those of us who are differencers:

Category GR10 Option 1 Difference
Infrastructure 30% 25% -5%
Dapp Tech 25% 25%
Community 20% 20%
NFTs 7.5% 10% +2.5%
dGov 7.5% 7.5%
Latin America 10% 5% -5%
Africa - 7.5% +7.5%

Thank you. Appreciate the visual diff :slight_smile:

I guess it’s probably too late to suggest a new pool allocation. But I saw the topic just now.
I am not vehemently against the proposed allocation.

I just have two things I don’t like:

  • I don’t like the idea of area-specific categories. I don’t believe they are needed or that they have an overall positive benefit.
  • I think tools for distributed governance is something the world needs 1000x times more than NFTs.

With that in mind this would be my proposal.

  • Infrastructure: 25%
  • Dapp Tech: 25%
  • Community: 20%
  • dGov: 20%
  • NFT Tech: 10%

(And I still think NFTs take “more than they should” in my proposal too)

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback! I would love to see us bolster the dGov category in future rounds. One note on how the dGov category faired in GR10… Snapshot took like 65% of the total pool. This is likely due to a number of reasons, but one consideration for the GR11 proposal (to hold the category steady) was to hold steady until diversity increased knowing the matching pool amount was increased as well.

We need to get the word out that these categories exist so that we get decent variety in winner allocation (IMO). Personally, I would like to find other ways to avoid the rich getting richer.


I like the inclusion of regional-based categories. I would likely opt to do one region per round and do more marketing and promotion around the projects representing that region. As such I would propose to drop Latin America, and increase Africa’s share to 12.5%. In the next grant round, we could drop Africa and highlight the middle east as per someone else’s suggestion and so on.

I like the idea of focusing on one region per round, but I question 12.5%. That seems high compared to other categories. If we did do this, though, perhaps after focusing on each region once, we could drop the regional categories.

I also want to say I vehemently agree with Lefteris’s comment above that funding ‘NFT tech’ to such a high level makes little sense. And I particularly disagree with increasing the NFT allocation.

Snapshot getting 65% of total dgov category is a good insight. I thought the @lefterisjp 's suggestion to boost governance is good until you brought up the data.

The whole idea of categories are to boost allocation for projects which get less attention and hence funding despite their relative importance.

Is there any datatset available which allows anyone to simulate various allocation scenario?

Fair enough. I don’t know what else to contribute in this. I stated what I disagree with in this allocation.

I understand that a single grant getting 65% of an entire category pot is bad. We should definitely find ways to address this, but not totally convinced we should tie those two problems together.

Anyway I don’t know how to “voice” this disagreement in snapshot. It’s not strong enough to vote no. So I will probably just abstain.

Sounds good @lefterisjp.

Thanks @makoto for the feedback. I would love to share details once we get past execution on GR11. It would be great to have someone partner or drive the GR12 allocations based on explorations like you describe. Perhaps we can dive in together, if you are interested?

I also appreciate that @auryn suggested we use nested matching pools as an alternative to deciding categories. I would love to explore this too.


Sure. Any pointers on what data is available on Gitcoin matching ground in general? If it hasn’t any and want to discuss happy to chat. You can DM me on @makoto_inoue

We have an API with lots of info available. You can explore that here. I can dive in more 1:1 after GR11 :pray:

What about adding the “Environment” category given we have been getting lots of criticism of jpeg NFTs not being environmentally friendly? What are the projects which try to offset them?

1 Like

+1, would love to see it & not just for carbon offsetting but also things like the wildlife preserving NFTs