Hypercerts for the Local Level

As described by @owocki in “Better Impact Funding” we understand that Hypercerts are tools to track and prove the actual impact provided by organizations/individuals/protocols, etc. What if this same tool is used to track impact within an organization or sub organizations and in this case within local GreenPill Chapters?

Initiated and led by @sejalrekhan and the GreenPill Network, I propose that each chapter utilize this tool as a way of funding the work and activities done by not only the chapter as a whole, but also individuals within the chapter.

Since the mechanism allows us to directly integrate the metadata/attributes of the project/activity straight into the Gitcoin Grant Stack, when creating “projects” for a QF/DF round, it also enables us to be able to easily run a QF/DF round within the sub organizations itself(again in this case, local chapters).

Case example:

GP Nigeria is implementing this process as follows:

  1. Each month tasks are presented by the chapter steward for members to execute.
  2. At completion, each task is reviewed. Upon approval, GP Nigeria Hypercerts are minted for the contributors to claim.
  3. At the end of each quarter after the Gitcoin and GreenPill QF rounds, a chapter specific QF round will be initiated through the GitCoin GrantStack with a portion of the available chapter funds. To be eligible to receive rewards/funding during this chapter round, participants of course are required to be holders of the chapter Hypercert. This will help identify what areas the chapter members deem to be important; thus bringing more focus to these areas in the upcoming quarter.
  4. With another portion of the available chapter funds, a DF round will also be initiated simultaneously with a set amount distributed to participating individuals who also are Hypercert holders. This is in place, in order to reward/fund individuals for their efforts during the quarter, regardless of importance level to the chapter members as a whole. The DF pool amount ideally would be smaller than the QF amount to preserve chapter funds for other impactful activities that the chapter will be implementing in the next quarter.

Why implement:

The reasoning behind this process is to bring value to the Hypercerts that are being issued out to chapter members. It will be an on chain proof of engagement and impact within a local level or organization. It is also an incentive for holders to hold on to their Hypercerts. Members could transfer these Hypercerts to others as consideration, knowing that it is a required element when participating in the chapter’s grant rounds.

Imagine if other organizations or chapters implement this process. It will be a form of showing involvement within that organization in which individuals can take pride in.

Due to the direct integration to the Grant Stack, this implementation will enable more organizations or sub organizations to utilize the GitCoin Grant Stack as a tool for funding and rewarding their valued members seamlessly. Instead of focusing on the actual individual, the on-chain nature of this allows organizations to reward the value created by the holder, which is represented by the Hypercert.

Think of “Better Impact Funding” as a macro view of the Gitcoin, GreenPill and Protocol labs partnership. Then consider “Hypercerts for the Local Level” as a micro view of the same aforementioned partnership.

In house experiments that work are the catalyst to wider adoption. Once proven effective, this will be another channel which requires Grant Stack implementation within smaller organizations. I would appreciate your thoughts on this minor topic. I will update this during Q1 2024 as we implement this in Q4 2023. Thank you for your inputs in advance.


This is a really interesting thread and thank you for opening it @Decentralizedceo :slight_smile:

I may draft in @rohit and @carlosjmelgar here with a question – is there any way of folding cluster matching into this? Or am I way off in my line of thinking here?

1 Like

@quaylawn as far as cluster matching, I believe it really depends on the organizational preference. It can be very useful with a big organization in order to help make the donation/voting process fair for all participants. It may not be ideally applicable for smaller intimate organizations or groups. Would love to hear what @carlosjmelgar and others think.