We see a strong opportunity to create meaningful token utility in GG23. While we haven’t launched many experiments in this area before, this presents an exciting chance to explore and learn. By testing new approaches, we can develop a stronger perspective and expertise on what will be most effective.Our first experiment will be fast/lean and lean into market trends that are currently successful.
We would like to run this experiment through GG23’s QF OSS Program, which will have a total of $600k matching pool. We will be requesting 3% of the round value (600k USDC) at 18k USDC to fund the staking rewards for this experiment. This request for funds will be included in the matching pool ratification ahead of the round.
Experiment #1 GG23: Stake for your favorite projects
The basic concept is that anyone can stake GTC on projects in a GG round to showcase their support and draw greater volumes of crowdfunding, excitement, and matching funds.
How it works:
Round starts
Gitcoin funds the stake rewards pool (with 18k USDC)
Projects apply and get approved
Projects show up on explorer
Users stake GTC on grants to signal support. Minimum stake is 1 GTC. No maximum stake.
For every project, we keep track who has staked how much (aka we know the % )
Once the round ends, QF distribution runs and we know which projects get what % of the pot
For example:
If project A gets 5% of the pot , then reward pot for staking on project is 5% of 18k (900 USDC).
This 900 USDC is split between the stakers based on how much % they had staked
If wallet1 accounts for 50% of the staked tokens for project A, they get 50% of 900 (450 USDC)
If wallet2 accounts for 1% of the staked tokens for project A, they get 1% of 900 (9 USDC)
Best OSS on Ethereum - curated list of best projects on Ethereum.
The way this pool works is:
Stake the minimum $GTC and sign the Gitcoin Code of Conduct onchain to be able to create and vote on proposals.
People can stake additional $GTC to get more voting weight in the Pool. This can be 1 token = 1 vote, or quadratic voting (multiple options for sybil resistance for this).
Community members can dispute abusive or irrelevant proposals, which a Safe of Gitcoin contributors rules to approve or block (more optimistic + decentralized than an approval-based moderating system).
As an experiment, I imagine this type of governance pool might work better without the explicit promise of funding. Not to say that airdropping $ to winners wouldn’t be a good idea, but maybe seasonally looking at results and sending out project rewards only if the Gitcoin community feels good about the results. That might work better from a collective intelligence POV, without making it any less fun to hold $GTC to participate.
Plus, with conviction voting in Gardens you can require voter support on proposals over longer periods of time, which should help with that issue even more
Thanks @paul2 ! We’d love to use Gardens more in the future. I think it’s important that this version be integrated into Grants Stack UX to encourage participation.
Definitely interested to see the impact of rewards… I’m personally very pro-rewards but happy to be proven wrong
That sounds exciting @gnomadic
Will you be using the Human Passport score or another solution to address Sybil attacks?
Also, to stake, do you first need to make a donation to the project? IMHO requiring a minimum donation to stake is the only way to generate greater volumes of crowdfunding, excitement, and matching funds.
