i would like to solicit feedback from you all about how i should change my delegations for S15. pls fill out this form if you have feedback for me (anon responses ok). or if you can comment below as long as your comment meets the forum guidelines and code of conduct.
for other ppl who have over 20k (ish) worth of GTC:, id love if you posted a similar transparency report about who you delegate to and why. i thikn doing so will create a proactive conversation about how we give feedback, cultivate leadership (esp what we look for in leadres), & decentralize power at gitcoindao (and probably prevent help hone some delegations)
I am really glad to see this post here! Why? Because, as a newbie in the space, what’s been very surprising for me was the realization that there seem to be about < 10 stewards with delegated GTC >1M and additionally about +/- 10 active stewards with <1M && >100k. The story of Gitcoin being driven by “whale-ish stewards” manifested in my head.
So, yes, I would love to see a more “quadratic-ish” distribution (within reason!) since the quadratic approach is built into the DNA of Gitcoin and internally I d advocate for taking this point of view into account when making delegations.
This is a phenomenal request. Thank you for doing this and starting the trend! There has been lots of discussion amongst DAO contributors about this topic. Seeing it addressed directly is nice.
I think we all hope for Gitcoin to one day use Quadratic weighting for our governance voting, but we don’t have that level of sybil protection yet. Soon this will be possible, but while we are on that path, this kind of transparency is greatly appreciated.
i am going to be updating my delegations in the coming weeks in preparation for S15. i’m tentatively planning on delegating away from the existing group + towards a broader base of participants. if you would like to recommend a delegate to me pls fill out this form
Very cool to see this information and thought process shared publicly! Random technical question: do you manage your delegations by simply splitting your GTC across accounts and setting the delegate for each account?
@DisruptionJoe: Can bring in expertise from multiple angles @sidcode: Can bring in the insights from the broader web3 world to boost overall gitcoinDAO @tjayrush: Can bring in technical depth to a greater extent in the decision-making process
based on some minimal interaction, I think they can prove to be helpful in streamlining and alignment to essential intent required while voting (I am not aware if they are stewards or not yet) @brent @emudoteth @lthrift
Thoughts: To increase passport utility, you (any steward who wants to delegate) can base another small percentage on passport scores. There are a few more I would like to add to the list, but cannot due to less interaction, or they being new to gitcoin. I was thinking if a very small percentage, can be allocated to a combined set of such individuals somehow for deeper discussions, so you get to have data next time you are deciding this, but next time for now.
Maybe moonshot can whip up something!
I am glad Kish mentioned small allocations. If decentralization and distributed power is important shouldn’t the goal be wide not deep? I wonder if delegating to folks that are already big GTC holders aligns with our stated decentralization goal.
That said, I also support Disruption Joe, Lindsay and Kevin O. gaining delegations. I’d prefer to see active folks in the dao getting delegations than industry superstars that might not have the time to participate in, or understand Gitcoin Dao activity.
I wonder why folks don’t delegate smaller amounts to more people? I understand there are a few manual steps involved. Maybe it is a hassle. I’d love to see a bunch of 1% delegations used to further decentralize the power base. Afaik the delegation can be reversed at any time. Maybe those seeking to delegate could get some recommendations from workstream lead’s and these folks get 1% or even 0.1%.
Without this understanding, we risk delegations going to a small group people, probably those with the strongest ties to the original Gitcoin company or product. But we gotta start somewhere. There are so many factors that might make a Steward important.
Will any memeapalooza champions get delegations? What about using steward health cards in your evaluations? What about those folks that travelled to live events and worked the booth? What about those folks with the most CVs (like software Eng?) Or the most time on Gitcoin.co? Or using the leaderboard to evaluate grant participation? Or overall txs on Gitcoin.co? So many possibilities!
Overall it is wonderful to see delegations happening! Huge gratitude goes out to anyone taking the time to evaluate and delegate to another. Do a few small ones please! I was stuck without any GTC for a long time as a Steward which meant I wasn’t able to vote in the early days of the Dao. Purchased GTC didn’t count. So I’ve been trying to accumulate delegations for many months (thanks Kris for the guidance!).
FWIW i put forward my criteria for how ill be updating my delegations here in the OP.
To further update that & extend my thinking:
I’m primarily focused on seeing Grants 2.0 shipped + reaching product market fit (so we can move the platform from centralized to decentralized + take advantage of the modular/forkable nature of Grants 2.0). This means delegating to people who are performing as A players and are making G2.0 happen (as well as those who are helping people in the wrong roles evolve forward to find a new fit. After that, and as the bottom is in on the bear market vibes I plan to majorly change my delegations to decentralize as much power as possible in a broad way (a good target for this = no one has over 10% of my delegated GTC).
here is the latest grants 2.0 roadmap timeline that im aware of, which should give you a sense of how this will evolve over time
That said, I am starting to broaden the delegations already but we’ve got to build that muscle. I’ve actually only gotten 6 suggestions from the community about who to spread delegations to so far. I’d appreciate more suggestions via this form!
there is a larger question/discussion about the tradeoff space here. i posted some twitter threads about the tradeoff space between action + decentralization here as well.
I’m open to feedback on the above thinking. This post is intended for transparency purposes + is the start of a convo not the end.
Frankly I’m stunned by the low submissions. It is (maybe) unfortunate but politics is part of dao life. If folks ignore this our governance efforts may be hindered and biased. If someone cares about this Dao I implore you to speak up and make some recommendations via the form. If someone really cares about the Dao recommend yourself too though I suggest adding a little proof
“…the tyranny of structurelessness.”
Wow…any dao-person can appreciate the powerful accuracy of this condition, I bet. Like a deer frozen in the headlights a dao can be paralyzed by fundamentalists. There is an alternative future in which we ‘lose the good in pursuit of the perfect’…but I’m confident we can avoid this. A small centralization debt is probably acceptable to me, in the right ways. (Eg Stewards vote to hire a professional reputable business coach and consider implementing their suggestions).
Really glad to know small delegations may be forthcoming, or, are at least recognized as important.
I originally started doing these threads before passing the torch because I felt like being involved in CSDO/DAO leadership from May 2021 - Summer 2022 it was important to be transparent. And I wanted to invite a convo about decentralizing delegations.
When I started composing these threads, I had hoped:
that other token holders would follow my lead and begin posting their delegations, and that has not happened (with the exception of you once or twice @kyle ) .
Now that I’m (1) not involved in CSDO or DAO leadership as of summer 2022, (2) there was limited engagement on my invitation to help me decentralize my delegations, (3) no decentralization essential intent was ever introduced, and (4) other GTC holders have not followed suit, I was not planning on continuing these threads. Would it be different this time? Will I be met half way this time? Open to changing my course of action - especially if my effort is met by efforts of others…
Another path forward might be to have a dune dashboard that just shows how everyone is delegating.
How is the stewards council going? Last update I’ve seen was from about 2-3 months ago on this thread.
I am a 1/2 time contributor who has been at Gitcoin since August. But I think a lot about governance and here are my observations:
Gitcoin voting is centralized. Four, 5 or 6 of the largest stewards deliver >50% of any given vote.
Gitcoin token governance is limited to budget proposals four times per year. On occasion, there are other proposals made, but they are limited to about 1 or 2 per quarter.
We recruit, onboard, and inform stewards what is happening, but we don’t ask our stewards to help make decisions. And when we do, their vote is - provocatively stated - kind of meaningless.
For example, I am a steward. I have bought or earned each of my 21K tokens I vote with, and my tokens earn me 0.01% of share of voice when compared to just one of the largest delegates. Why do I bother voting?
Is any of this viewed as a problem for Gitcoin? I do not know. @owocki, to your point there was little pull on your “decentralization” prompt back in August, and my efforts to nudge us towards decentralization have had little traction. Might be that everyone is comfortable with the patina of decentralization, maybe no one realizes how centralized Gitcoin voting is, or might be we are so heads down-focused that it’s just not a priority.
I find it kind of sad. But curious to see what others think. There are several low lift solutions to this issue - my question is - does anyone care?
We are moving - too early to tell if we are going to make an impact but here are the notes from meeting #2.
Agenda & Pre Reading: [link] Meeting notes: (link) Recording of the meeting: (link) Meeting Feedback & Action steps: (link)
My view is that the lack of protocol/market fit + lack of sustainability of Gitcoin are larger and more imminent threats. There are already essential intents covering those problems, but I’m unsure what progress has been made against them.
As someone who has been outside the DAO for about 6 months now, it’s really really hard to see the progress being made/roadmap for making progress from the outside. And even if I could understand the progress, the workstreams are relatively ungovernable because they are large, centralized, monolithic, and there is no alternative to each workstreams governance proposal each quarter. This kind of reminds me how the old product was unmaintainable because it was so large, centralized, and monolithic and there was no alternative to it. Because of this, most of my delegates are insiders who can understand the nuances of each proposal. I think I’ve seen some action towards more decentralized thin workstreams or pods, maybe that will create some change.