Gitcoin Sensemaking Report: Builder Development as Ethereum’s Most Meaningful Problem

🧐 Gitcoin Sensemaking Szn
1

PROBLEM AND IMPACT

What specific Ethereum problem am I addressing?

SPECIFIC PROBLEM: Ethereum faces a builder sustainability challenge, while we’re relying on the same tools, ecosystem thinking and generation of builders that have got us through the past decade, the challenges of the next decade demand a fresh wave of innovators equipped with new perspectives, skills, and infrastructure to build what’s next.

To unlock the next decade of growth, we must invest in a new generation of builders, developers, creators and more who are diverse, forward-thinking, and empowered with the education, infrastructure, and community they need to build on Ethereum and for Ethereum.

Why is this urgent and significant right now?

Funding a new Generation of Builders is significant now because global interest in blockchain continues to grow with Web2 Platforms like Shopify Accepting USDC.

Only 7% of the global population; people and businesses combined are currently part of the Ethereum ecosystem. As global blockchain adoption accelerates, we’re projected to reach 10% within the next two years. This impending surge presents both an opportunity and a challenge: if Ethereum is to support this growth sustainably, we must prepare today by building new human capital needed to drive this adoption push.

What evidence supports the importance of this problem?

Evidence 1 - The rise of Vibecoding
The next generation of Ethereum builders won’t 100% come from traditional CS backgrounds; they’ll be designers, artists, creators, and students who can remix code, grasp logic, and use AI to bring their ideas to life.

We’re entering an era where:

  • Building is social, fast, and expressive not siloed or gatekept.
  • AI-assisted onboarding shortens learning curves and opens doors to new creators.
  • Mini Apps are becoming increasingly desired , and builders are exploring how to make simpler versions of their dApp viral.
  • The narrators of Ethereum’s development, are builders who are exploring creating super Apps that contain embedded wallets, miniapps and less of dApp interactions, the infra for that is the next era we’re entering.

Over the next decade, some of the most impactful contributions may come not only from core devs, but from AI-native builders coding from dorm rooms, campus hubs, and online communities or builders who have staff and team members in these categories.

Evidence 2 - Developer Decline
Active blockchain developers dropped 25%, with new contributors down 50%, Ethereum still leads but saw a significant drop in monthly devs.

How do you know this matters deeply to users, not just captures attention or generates buzz?

Regular Users
New users enter Ethereum through NFTs, DeFi, or curiosity and quickly ask: “What now?”
There’s strong desire to go from user → contributor → builder , especially among students and young tech talent in Africa and emerging regions.

But without mentorship, hacker houses, or local support, many stall. They take free courses, join Discords, but hit a wall — no clear path forward.

Projects & Ecosystems
Protocols, DAOs, and infra teams all face the same problem: a builder gap .
They need contributors for tooling, integrations, community work — but their pipelines are dry.

Hackathons bring short-term energy, but not long-term builders.
Without mentorship, context, and connection, new devs don’t stick around.

Teams need specialized onboarding — developers who understand their stack, mission, and tools. Hacker houses and campus hubs deliver exactly that.

SENSEMAKING ANALYSIS

We used a mixed-method sensemaking model:

  • Interviews & Field Reports
  • On-chain activity data
  • Analysis of Twitter spaces, forum posts , and essays by ecosystem leaders.

Data was aggregated through survey forms, Telegram communities, and we also collected post-round reflections from Gitcoin grantees on what types of funding were most catalytic. Patterns revealed that the most sustainable contributors started in community-driven, often university-based spaces.

GITCOIN’S UNIQUE ROLE & FUNDRAISING

Gitcoin’s Unique Role & Fundraising

Gitcoin is uniquely positioned to fund and structure this domain for one reason: it already serves the layer between builders and ecosystems. Gitcoin knows what types of programs help people move from community member to contributor, from dreamer to dev. No other Public Goods funding platform has as much data on early-stage builders, nor as many tools to track attestation, impact, and momentum.

Unlike traditional education orgs, Gitcoin has quadratic funding, the Grants Stack, attestation integrations, and community governance. These tools can be bundled into a hub enablement model — where campuses or grassroots groups are given infrastructure to run training, maintain OSS tools, host events, and report progress.

Fundraising this domain is realistic: Yes I think we can raise 50k, we’d approach ecosystems like Celo, Base, Octant, Pond and others.

SUCCESS MEASUREMENT AND REFLECTION

Within 6 months, success will look like:

  • 5 Ethereum Campus Hubs activated with micro-grants.
  • 20 Projects launched into the Ethereum ecosystem using Builder tools.
  • 50+ developers transitioned into contributing to OSS tools, DAOs, or Ethereum infra.
  • Launch of 3-5 student-led OSS tools (e.g., dashboards, attestations, grant stack use-cases).

Beyond activity metrics, we will track:

  • Sustained engagement (e.g., students continuing to contribute 3-6 months later).
  • Cross-collaboration with funders and ecosystems (e.g., grantees building tools on Arbitrum, Base, or Scroll).
  • Narratives captured — short-form documentaries, blog features, and podcast interviews.

Satisfaction Test: Ethereum’s long-term vitality comes from more people who can build and not only people who can use.

Domain Proposal Info

At the moment, none yet.

KarlaGod

5 Likes
2

This is spot on, people need to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel! Which means directing them towards work they believe they can do given the right resources and support structure.

3 Likes
3

Love the direction of user → contributor → builder.

I like the idea of focusing on Africa and other emerging markets; however, I do believe that it’s key to ensure non-uni students in those specific clusters can also participate and benefit, having a focus on accessible and virtual resources. From experience, I know the best contributors sometimes come from the most unexpected places.

In terms of a DDA - I would personally like to support concrete initiatives such as digital course creation, campus programs, and cohorts. IMHO, Kernel is a good benchmark for what a user → purpose-driven funnel initiatives should aim to be like and accomplish.

2 Likes
4

Thanks a lot for your feedback Luuk, I would love to hear your take in our X space happening in 3 hours and 30 mins.

https://x.com/i/spaces/1vOGwXEZlpVJB

5

Thanks a lot for your feedback Jrocki, I would love to hear your take in our X space happening in 3 hours and 30 mins.

https://x.com/i/spaces/1vOGwXEZlpVJB

1 Like
6

Reminder set, thank you for hosting

1 Like
7

I think this is a great sense making. I would as well add something about considering non university participants. Yes, looking at the university students is good but i personally have seen on top of that a great level of commitment from builders(people that have transformed into blockchain builders) meanigfully contributing to building products and staying actively contributing in the ecosystem for a long time. Sometimes people see the opportunity when they have had a post university experience of about six months + and if afforded the opportunity come with higher levels of concentration that propel them to contribute meaningfully? @KarlaGod, What are your thoughts on this?

1 Like
8

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for raising such a valuable point, here are my thoughts on this.

University cohorts are vital, many builders emerge after university through real-world experience, often starting full-time work or engaging with startup spaces in web3.

In our interviews and community research, we’ve seen that:

  • Builders who transition into the ecosystem during University days, then graduate and remain building in the ecosystem, especially after 6-12 months, often bring higher focus and stability to their contributions because they’ve already practiced handling school and building, so there’s an increased focus after Uni experience.

  • We’ve also seen that many ecosystem contributors joined via post-graduate incubation like ETHGlobal, B<>rder/ess Cipher Session hackathons, or startup accelerator programs rather than campus clubs but it was also because while they were in Uni they got connected with community members of various campus clubs like the B<>rder/ess web3 Tech Clubs.

  • Notwithstanding, we’ve also been able to provide opportunities for people who didn’t go to the University, we do that through providing Physical web3 Hubs they can have that collaborative workspace in to explore the onchain ecosystem.

What we can adjust in our Sensemaking & Funding Approach

For deeper impact, our Sensemaking proposals and future grant models can do this:

  1. Include post-university builders those who bring career experience, mentorship, and domain-specific focus.
  2. Explore ecosystem incubators, regional accelerator programs, and hubs not just campus clubs.
  3. Recognize that diverse entry points (student-led or post student-led) strengthen the builder pipeline.

Thank you again for prompting this nuance!

1 Like
9

Draft Scorecard

2025/08/18 - Version 0.1.1

By Owocki

Prepared for KarlaGod re: “Gitcoin Sensemaking Report: Builder Development as Ethereum’s Most Meaningful Problem”

(vibe-researched-and-written by an LLM using this prompt, iterated on, + edited for accuracy quality and legibility by owocki himself.)

Proposal Comprehension

Title
Gitcoin Sensemaking Report: Builder Development as Ethereum’s Most Meaningful Problem

Author
KarlaGod

TLDR

Ethereum faces a looming builder sustainability gap. Developer counts are down, new contributors are stalling, and existing tools and funnels (hackathons, Discords, free courses) are not producing long-term ecosystem contributors. The proposal argues Gitcoin should step into a unique role to fund and structure builder development hubs, especially through campus clubs, hacker houses, and grassroots hubs. The plan is to catalyze a new generation of builders by providing micro-grants, mentorship, infrastructure, and attestation tooling.

Proposers

KarlaGod — active community member and sensemaking contributor, engaged in organizing discussions, interviews, and synthesis across Gitcoin governance.

Domain Experts

Not explicitly listed in the proposal. However, community feedback from LuukDAO, jrocki.eth, and kaksv provided substantive insights about builder funnels, emerging markets, and inclusion of post-university contributors. At present, no “recognized expert names” in builder education or Ethereum workforce development are formally tied in.

Problem

Ethereum is relying on the same generation of builders, tools, and mental models that sustained it over the last decade. But developer participation is dropping (25% fewer active devs, 50% fewer new contributors) and we face a talent gap just as global adoption is accelerating. Hackathons provide short-term bursts but don’t sustain contributors. Many new users want to transition to contributor → builder, but they stall without mentorship, hubs, and clear pipelines.

Solution

Gitcoin is well positioned to fund and structure builder development by enabling campus hubs, hacker houses, and grassroots nodes. The proposal envisions micro-grants for 5 hubs, launching 20 projects, onboarding 50+ developers into OSS contributions, and producing 3–5 student-led tools. Gitcoin’s quadratic funding, attestation tools, and Grants Stack make it a natural fit to structure this ecosystem layer.

Risks

  • Overreliance on university ecosystems may exclude builders who enter post-university or through nontraditional paths.
  • Scaling beyond 1-2 hubs may require significant logistical coordination and partner buy-in.
  • Proposal is strong on problem framing, but light on concrete ops planning, leadership team, and specific budget breakdowns.

Outside Funding

The proposer anticipates raising $50k from ecosystems like Celo, Base, Octant, and Pond. No confirmed co-funding commitments yet.

Why Gitcoin?

Gitcoin uniquely sits at the builder–ecosystem interface and already has infrastructure for quadratic funding, attestations, and impact tracking. It has more data on early-stage builder journeys than other platforms. Gitcoin’s position makes it a natural hub for structuring grassroots builder support.

Owockis Scorecard

# Criterion 0 1 2 Notes
1 Problem Focus – Clearly frames a real problem (priority, not solutionism) 2 Strong articulation of the builder sustainability challenge with data and urgency.
2 Credible, High leverage, Evidence-Based Approach 1 Good sensemaking effort, but lacks rigorous research detail and over-relies on anecdotal insights.
3 Domain Expertise – Recognized experts onboard 0 No clear domain experts tied to the proposal. Community discussion provides value but not same as committed experts.
4 Co-Funding – Backing beyond Gitcoin 0 Intentions to raise 50k externally, but no confirmed partners yet.
5 Fit-for-Purpose Capital Allocation Method 1 moderate alignment: quadratic funding + attestation + Grants Stack well-suited for builder development, but who will build it?.
6 Execution Readiness – Deliver by October 1 Ambitious metrics (5 hubs, 20 projects, 50 devs) but light on execution plan/team.
7 Other – vibe check 1 High-energy, community-grounded proposal, with good feedback loops and alignment with Gitcoin’s mission. But lacks clear execution path

Score
Confidence: 75%
Total Score: 6 / 16

Feedback

Major

  • Secure commitments from at least one or two co-funders before October to de-risk execution.
  • Bring on credible domain experts (education, developer growth, Ethereum workforce programs) to strengthen legitimacy.
  • Strengthen proof that you can do this by launching 1 builder hub before going to 5.

Minor

  • Expand scope beyond universities to include post-university and nontraditional contributors.
  • Add concrete budget and operational details (who runs the hubs, what micro-grants look like, reporting expectations).
  • Clarify long-term sustainability plan beyond 6-month window.

Steel man case for/against

For
Builder decline is one of Ethereum’s existential problems. Gitcoin is uniquely positioned to solve it by structuring a community-first, quadratic funding-driven pipeline for new contributors. The proposal is mission-aligned, community-backed, and focuses on human capital — arguably the highest-leverage investment Ethereum can make.

Against
Execution risk is high. Without credible experts or confirmed co-funders, the initiative may end up duplicating existing programs (Kernel, ETHGlobal) without delivering meaningful long-term outcomes. Focus on university hubs risks being too narrow and missing other high-value entry points.

Rose / Bud / Thorn

Rose
Strong problem framing, clear urgency, and highly aligned with Gitcoin’s mission. Engaging proposal that excites community members and highlights an existential issue (builder sustainability).

Thorn
Lack of domain experts and concrete execution details makes this high risk. Without co-funding, Gitcoin may end up overexposed financially.

Bud
If Gitcoin secures ecosystem partners and brings in recognized builder-development experts, this could evolve into a durable, high-impact domain that seeds the next generation of Ethereum talent globally.

Feedback

Did I miss anything or get anything wrong? Feel free to comment and correct.

Other feedback

Maybe worth combining with other pop up city or builder development initiatives that are already mature?

1 Like
10

Oh, I see, I didn’t know I was supposed to add the execution strategy together with my proposal, I should have done that, I just followed the format given in this guide

11

yes you’re correct, @KarlaGod! the execution plan was not specifically set out within the template so you’re good!

1 Like
12

Thanks for this proposal @KarlaGod — it’s a strong contribution and has generated valuable discussion. Here’s my review using my steward scorecard, which combines submission compliance with a strategic evaluation lens.

:white_check_mark: Submission Compliance Check

  • Word count: ~1,050 — within required range
  • Problem & Impact: :white_check_mark:
  • Sensemaking Analysis: :white_check_mark:
  • Gitcoin Fit & Fundraising: :white_check_mark:
  • Success Metrics & Reflection: :white_check_mark:
  • Domain Info: :x: currently listed as “none yet” — a critical gap

:bar_chart: Scorecard Evaluation

Total Score: 10 / 16

# Criteria Score Notes
1 Problem Clarity & Relevance 2 Clear articulation of the builder gap with urgency and supporting data
2 Sensemaking Approach 1 Good interviews and patterns surfaced, but methodology is more anecdotal than systematic
3 Gitcoin Fit & Uniqueness 2 Strong articulation of Gitcoin’s role between ecosystems and builders
4 Fundraising Plan 1 Ecosystems named (Base, Celo, Octant, Pond), but no commitments yet
5 Capital Allocation Design 1 Mentions “hub enablement model,” but mechanism choice and grant ops not defined
6 Domain Expertise & Delivery 0 No steward or team listed; acknowledged in your follow-up
7 Clarity & Completeness 2 Well-written, well-structured, meets template
8 Gitcoin Support Required 1 Would require Gitcoin scaffolding (steward recruitment, mechanism design, funder matchmaking)

:pushpin: On Execution Plans & Template Expectations

You mentioned you followed the provided template, and Mathilda confirmed execution strategy wasn’t explicitly required. That’s fair. At the same time, stewardship decisions hinge heavily on execution readiness — so even a short outline of team, budget, and mechanism would make a big difference here.

:arrows_counterclockwise: Comparison to Other Reviews

I scored this higher (10/16) than @owocki (6/16). My rubric places more weight on problem clarity, alignment, and narrative strength. His rubric emphasizes operational maturity and co-funding traction. Both lenses are valid, and the difference highlights the tension between vision and readiness.

:toolbox: What Gitcoin Would Need to Make This Work

If this domain is selected, Gitcoin would likely need to provide support in areas where the proposal is light:

  • Steward/lead recruitment (credible domain expert to run the hubs)
  • Mechanism design guidance
  • Funder matchmaking with the ecosystems you listed
  • A pilot structure (1 hub) before scaling to 5

Without these, the execution risk remains high.

:yellow_circle: Conditional Support

I would support this domain if the following are addressed:

  • A domain steward or team is named
  • A clear mechanism for the round is proposed
  • At least one co-funder is in active discussion
  • A short ops outline is shared (budget, grants model, reporting expectations)

Thanks again for surfacing such an important problem. With the right scaffolding, this could evolve into a high-impact domain that seeds the next generation of Ethereum talent.

1 Like
13

Ok great, thank you so much, good to know.

14

Thank you, already started on that, will provide some feedback ASAP.

1 Like
15

Thanks for this proposal highlighting Builder Development as Ethereum’s most meaningful problem — we share the view that sustaining and empowering builders is central to the health of the ecosystem.

In our proposal, we didn’t propose a domain but rather are testing whether CollabBerry’s contributor-level allocation and accountability tools could serve across domains as complementary mechanisms.

What feels highly connected here is the recognition that builder sustainability is not just about funding projects, but about supporting the humans behind them. Many builders face invisible struggles: how their contributions are valued, whether compensation feels fair, and whether their efforts align with team incentives. CollabBerry experiments with continuous peer-to-peer assessment mechanisms that generate a transparent reputation layer, informing fairer allocation of funds and recognition inside teams.

We see this as directly supporting builder development: while Gitcoin mechanisms bring resources to projects, CollabBerry helps ensure those resources are distributed fairly within projects, giving builders confidence that their contributions won’t be overlooked.

Would be curious to hear your take: do you see value in complementing builder-focused funding with contributor-level accountability tools to address this sustainability gap?