Welcome @vaughnmck!
Evaluated using my steward scorecard — reviewed and iterated manually for consistency, clarity, and alignment with GG24 criteria.
Submission Compliance
- Full structure is present: problem, sensemaking, metrics, domain info
- Sensemaking is focused on internal experiments (Optimism + Uniswap pilots), not the broader InfoFi ecosystem
- No co-funding confirmed
- Proposal scope is ambitious (10–15 markets in 6 months), and execution dependencies aren’t fully addressed
- Verdict: Compliant, but somewhat centralized and potentially over-scoped
Scorecard Evaluation
Total Score: 11 / 16
| Criteria | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Clarity | 2 | Frames the truth-misalignment problem well and positions Ethereum with urgency |
| Sensemaking Approach | 1 | Internal pilots are solid, but no external scan or ecosystem mapping — no signal from Polymarket, Omen, or failure cases |
| Gitcoin Fit | 2 | Gitcoin as host for discovery of new mechanism types makes sense |
| Fundraising Plan | 0 | No named funders, no matching, no in-kind support listed |
| Capital Allocation Design | 1 | Mechanism is clear (Butter + retro), but single-platform raises neutrality concern |
| Domain Expertise | 2 | Butter team is experienced; named advisors are serious credibility (Hanson, Waggoner, Chen) |
| Clarity & Completeness | 2 | Structured, focused, and tightly written |
| Gitcoin Support Required | 1 | Would need Gitcoin to support fraud monitoring, metrics validation, and help set neutrality guardrails |
Feedback for Improvement
Where I agree with Owocki:
- You need to cut scope. Ten markets is a stretch. Start with 3–5 that land signal early.
- Clarify how markets are chosen and who owns that process.
- Spell out post-subsidy metrics and exit conditions so this doesn’t become a ghost round.
What I’d add:
- Right now, this funds Butter’s roadmap. If this is a domain, show how it includes or benchmarks against other tools (e.g. UMA, Omen, Zeitgeist).
- Governance isn’t defined — who curates markets? Who validates oracles? Who handles resolution disputes?
- Potentially add one matching partner (EF, L2, or private funder) to reduce the optics of a product-led round.
Without clearer guardrails, it risks turning Gitcoin into a distribution channel for a single product without sufficient neutral framing or broad community input.
Would support if:
- Scope is reduced to 3–5 markets with clear rationale
- A public pipeline and resolution rules are published
- Governance and reviewer neutrality are defined