Hi all – I recently posted a twitter thread about Grants Stack product during GG18 that I wanted to capture on the forum as well!
Setting the stage: I joined Gitcoin ~3 months ago to lead product for Grants Stack. Grants Stack launched publicly in May as a new dApp for grants managers that Gitcoin’s PGF team also used to run GG18.
TL;DR: lots of work to do and things to build, but I feel pretty good about Grants Stack during GG18!
- Number of donations almost 3x beta round & 2x alpha
- Team addressed top 3 pieces of feedback from beta
- Big increase in product performance/stability from beta
Improvements from Beta Round
We addressed the top pieces of feedback we got during the beta round: gas fees, checkout UX, and donation history. We built features/workflows to address each of these.
We dramatically improved product stability and decreased the number of high-impact bugs (~10 → 3)!
We also strengthened our internal support processes with clear escalation guidelines, communication channels, and a bug priority matrix that helped our teams be more efficient in resolving bugs and better communicate with users who were impacted by them.
Feedback from GG18
We received some great feedback during GG18 & I’m SO grateful to the people who took the time to engage and share. Thank you all!!
On the grantee side, we heard two primary frustrations: an inability to edit applications after submission, as well as lack of visibility into rejection rationale.
Making applications un-editable was purposeful to reduce fraud, but ultimately not the right decision! it’s caused too much friction and we plan to change. The timeline is still TBD because there’s some contract work to read from the project registry directly instead of capturing a snapshot.
On rejection rationale, we’ve been discussing two paths forward…
1 Continue review process as-is & provide comments or criteria fields for rejection transparency
2 Move reviews process to “filter out spam only” and require applicants to stake GTC (which is then slashed if found to be spam/fraud)
Would love to hear what you would do in our shoes!
Donor feedback primarily centered around better discovery and browsing. We hear you We’re already working on a redesign and looking forward to your feedback as we roll it out. We’re planning to start with branding updates, search, sort/filter, and ability to browse all projects (vs select round first). We’re also considering how we might use ML to auto-tag or categorize grants since we have a relatively rich text library to build on. If you’re interesting in contributing to this project, please let us know!
Finally, we also heard frustration with the Passport experience – which the awesome Passport team is constantly digesting and adjusting to solve for! In Grants Stack, we’re exploring changing the default score or evolving to a sliding scale vs binary passing threshold.
I’d be remiss not to note, again, how grateful I am to our community for engaging, supporting, and giving feedback during this round! I’m attaching a screenshot from an internal tool (Productboard) where we tag and categorize all of the feedback we receive. It’s one of our greatest assets as a product/dev squad!
We know we have a lot to build and improve, but we’re committed to continually improving the product so that communities can invest in what matters to them. Public goods are good