How should I change my delegations? [Q2 2022]

I will summarize the key points as I see them, focusing on the centralization question.

  • Our current state of centralization is by your design.
  • The DAO has not engaged, pushed, or prioritized using your GTC to continue decentralization further, so decentralization has stalled.
  • Adjusting the current state is not a priority at this time.
  • Interesting, this could be solved by moving to a PMO (project management office) design where budgets are approved (by voters) by project+milestones vs. by function+period. Without an org. redesign.
  • Helpful, we can use this when challenged on the forum about insiders making decisions.

So - let’s get a temp check: lets assume >15 responses is significant.
Readers, please let us know in this anonymous poll - what do you think about decentralizing our current DAO Governance.

    1. Decentralization is not a priority for Season 17
    1. I am unsure or undecided or have no opinion
    1. Decentralization is a priority, and should be worked in Season 17

0 voters

Yes, there is. I like this line of thought.


What if we were to give every core contributor in the DAO a vote in a Quadratic Vote for who should have delegations? Just an idea…


  1. my GTC is a single digit percentage of the circulating supply. so i have no ability to centralize governance.
  2. i’ve done more than any other GTC holder to decentralize my delegations and haven’t been met halfway in my efforts at all.
  3. the DAO has people employed to design & manage the governance experience.

for the avoidance of doubt, the only way to decentralize delegations with the GTC Governor contract is to have multiple wallets… that is why i have to manage multiple wallets.

i don’t think it’s fair or a good faith argument to imply this is a sybil attack as there is no marginal return to making new wallets (governance is not quadratic). and the whole thread is about decentralizing delegations (which requires multiple wallets).

1 Like

Forgive me as I seek to understand, but it sounds like you are saying the current delegation to the largest voters are coming from another source? If that is the case, I guess it is interesting, but does not change the reality.

Yes, this is an assumption on my part. My assumption is that the bulk of delegation to the 4-5-6 active voters who regularly make up the >50% of GTC votes is from you.

Yep, seems to be the case. And I am surfacing up the question again in clear language. Is the DAO ok with this current state of centralization or is this a priority to change?

I am ok to change it and I think it should be changed, but I have zero interest in pushing something the DAO is not supportive of.

1 Like

Forgive me as I seek to understand, but it sounds like you are saying the current delegation to the largest voters are coming from another source? If that is the case, I guess it is interesting, but does not change the reality.

I’m saying that I have less than 10% of the GTC circulating supply - and I delegate all of it!

The reality is there is a great deal of room for improvement in terms of other stakeholders participating in governance. I obviously care about Gitcoin and its mission, having built it from scratch nearly 6(!) years ago and now focused on Supermodular and Greenpill and other regenerative projects with similar north stars - that’s exactly why I’ll continue to be transparent in my delegations. At the end of the day, I am just one node on the network (albeit an og one) - there is another ~90% of GTC out there by circulating supply (~95% by total supply) whose delegations could be updated.

my GTC is a single digit percentage of the circulating supply. so i have no ability to centralize governance.

Yes, this is an assumption on my part. My assumption is that the bulk of delegation to the 4-5-6 active voters who regularly make up the >50% of GTC votes is from you.

I’m not sure who the “4-5-6 active voters who regularly make up the >50% of GTC votes” are. According to Tally, the top 5 delegates have ~ 6.9m GTC in voting power from ~900 different addresses. (I don’t even delegate to all 5 of them though) Those 5 delegates, at ~6.9 GTC represent 900 addresses and about 10% of the circulating supply of GTC. And about ~30% of the voting supply.

If you want to see who I am delegating to or do the math on your own, I just posted my Q1 2023 delegations here.

1 Like

I agree with the assessment you’ve made. For context (for owocki), I’m a new steward particularly interested in governance and decentralized organizing, and it seems that there’s a lack of priority of decentralizing token-delegation (or even the holding of tokens). From my perspective so far, it seems like decentralization as an organization is a vision of Gitcoin’s and Gitcoin contributors, but there does not seem to be much urgency or energy in making it happen. For example:

  • Token governance is understood by many to be highly susceptible to centralized capture, but there’s relatively little conversation about eventually switching from this model
  • Token delegations (and perhaps token ownership) are heavily concentrated in a few people, but calls to try and improve this (like transparent posts such owocki’s quarterly “change my delegation”) get few responses

Some guesses as to why this might be:

  • No clear future vision of decentralization to buy into. As opposed to an org like Optimism, which explicitly formed with the intent to experiment and iterate on decentralized governance, GitcoinDAO perhaps has some uncertainty as to what decentralization should look like for us and why
  • Perhaps token decentralization seems less important than the decentralization of influence and process. As in, we should focus on how the DAO is actually organized first (stewards, workstreams, CSDO, etc.), then figure out how we should formally govern it later
  • People just assume someone else will handle it, and/or don’t feel like they have the expertise to contribute. Decentralization is a TASK right now. Choosing who to delegate to, or trying to provide input on who large token holders should delegate to, requires thoughtful research into Stewards’ activity within the DAO.

Despite this, I do think decentralization is extremely worthwhile, especially since we are explicitly aiming for ubiquity for the our products (passport and grants). The goal for the passport protocol is to have 90% of marketshare for DID web3 solutions. That kind of ubiquity is dangerous without proper community governance in my opinion.


To clarify, I thought it was obvious that this move is actually decentralizing as well as transparent and therefore is NOT a sybil attack (…and ok to poke fun). It is ironic that you have to split to different wallets to do this with the governor contract as is.


Maybe use something like this to delegate your GTC @owocki @kyle ?

I’m in a similar boat to @shawn16400 - lots of effort (not as much as him to be clear) - obsessing about the DAO in most waking hours (and the ODC as well these days) - PLUS was voted recently to be a Steward council member and yet → very small delegation if any.

I probably need to campaign for it and/or earn it over time. All fair.

In any case, currently, one could argue that we have a bit of governance theater. The contrast between the variety of voices and perspectives and the concentration of decision-making power is fairly stark.


Hey @owocki
Thanks for the chance to connect last Friday and earlier today. It is always good to talk face to face (virtually) for sticky issues.

We agree decentralization in the DAO is the ideal state and we should work for that. There are many layers of decentralization (token holder governance, workstream governance, computation, development, economics) However the most pressing need is ensuring work streams are delivering as expected and that we find a way to combat monolithic inertia. This could look like budget process changes, org adjustments, or clarity on milestones. But that is one of the larger issues to tackle vs. decentralization.

We also agreed to continue the dialogue and that it was a solid learning experience on both sides. Thanks for that : )


How are these scores calculated? I am surprised to see Shawn (someone who joined 6mos ago) with a higher score than a number of folks who have been working FT in the DAO for a year…

A) it’s a six month view
B) it’s a stewards report card not a DAO contributor report card; as such it is about engagement w governance via the forums and voting afaik and not for example bugs opened or closed
C) your comment sort of says a lot - if folks don’t know about this effort to somehow judge stewardship and how it is calculated, that’s probably why it doesn’t seem to be correlated with delegations

1 Like

maybe it’s worth adding an info popover or modal explaining how they are calculated? ive seen that question asked/answered a few times on the forum. having it right in the product would help pre-empt the question maybe?.

@epowell101 if you want id be happy to do a product interview with whomever built daostewards and talk through “what would have to be true for me to use it in my “quarterly delegation reshuffle flow”?” since i’m an outsider and someone who is managing GTC delegations, i make a good crash test dummy. email me if you want to take me up on it!


Hey Kyle,
Good question, and thanks for asking. The more eyes on the health cards the better. The algorithm was define here Introducing Steward Health Cards 2.0. The case you describe is caused by two variables. 1) the voting participation and 2) the forum participation.

If you compare, both “forum scores” are pretty close, but the real inequity is caused by the voting percentage. Any new person who successfully participates in a one snapshot vote after declaring stewardship can receive an artificially higher score given their vote participation is 100% as compared to someone who may have participated in many votes, but missed a few. Given we do not have many votes, it can take a long time for this metric to normalize.

We just launched this new site on Tuesday of last week. The new site is hosted by karmahq which reduces Gitcoin maintenance of json files, eliminates Gitcoin database hosting, and allows us to take advantage of improvements Karma rolls our across their user base. We decided to minimize any algorithmic changes in the upgrade to keep it simple, but we did experiment with score appreciation / depreciation over time to try to address that issue. It worked in some cases, but not with others.

The S17 plan for DAO ops has a line item specifically for this issue where I would like to bring Gitcoin in line with other DAOs using this ranking system.

Yes! this is one of our first enhancements we are asking for from our friends at in addition to revising the algorithm. You can see issues 17 & 18 in our tracking sheet here from S16, but any of the undone work will be migrated to the S17 tracker once we get that work under way. In about a day.

Thanks for the questions about The early work that Gitcoin & did pioneered delegate visibility and performance across web3. I am looking forward to continuing to develop this resource.


Thanks. Seems like you were responding as I was responding - and your response is comprehensive so I deleted my short shout-out / redirect to you. :fire:

I guess one question back to @owocki would be do you agree with the premise that more active participants in the metagovernance of Gitcoin are likely good people to delegate to? Or is the premise of the project wrong?

1 Like

Ha - I wondered when we rolled this out - the new UI seemed pretty recent as I just shared this link with another person 1.5 weeks ago :slight_smile:

Thanks for the details on the scoring, it certainly helps.

I may offer my thoughts on this one ^^ I definitely agree that people who are active in meta governance are good people to governance people. They are not the only people to delegate too, and those building the DAO likely are also good candidates. The same way we need a plurality or stamps in passport, we need a plurality of voices helping us govern.


Activity is one of the criteria I look at but not the only criteria. Activity is necessary but not sufficient IMO. Definitely top 5. (But I’m just one voice. Other ppl might have different criteria)

I posted a bit more on the criteria I look at on in this post from last week:

I dont have a super formalized list of criteria mapped out. Which is why I think maybe sounding it out on a product-design call might be fruitful.


One more point: Looks like draft budgets for this season are being put up now. And I’m the only GTC holder who’s posted their delegations. I’m happy to be held to a high transparency standard, but I’m not even the largest token holder. If y’all are going to hold me up to a standard of transparency (and progressive decentralization) it’d be nice if other GTC holders (especially large ones) were held to those standards too.


Definitely agreed. For my part, I’m not sure who are actually the largest token holders of GTC and where to get that information (I believe there is a Dune dashboard somewhere…but this information is not really advertised).

1 Like

Just catching up on this thread. We are pushing out score breakdown in a week that explains how scores were calculated, it is non-trivial, so took some time. But I want to make the dashboard work to answer your question, so emailing you right now :slight_smile: