folks, I think this post might be glossing over some core metrics and I suspect is striving to draw a comparison which does not follow. I was reticent to respond to this post, but I feel a couple more details might provide a balanced picture and help us flip the trajectory.
Fair warning, I am a new part-time contributor at Gitcoin, but I am a steward, and I have purchased or earned every single GTC I use to vote. This is my point of view:
I contribute at Gitcoin because the problem Gitcoin is trying to solve speaks to me.
But, I purchase and hold GTC because the organization has delivered $72M in funding since inception, the organization has put zero effort into cost offsets, and because by external non-profit benchmarks, costs remain largely in control.
Wait what? I though there was a lot of hoopla about out-of-control costs and how Gitcoin was burning through piles of cash?!? While I think points raised by @lefterisjp and @griff are valid - I disagree with the conclusions and suggested actions. More on that in a moment. But, back to costs.
For reference, Charitywatch (a respected charitable giving rating agency) grants an âAâ rating for charitable / non profit organizations that spend 25% or less on operations.
Using $17M as a total operating costs (assuming this is about right), and using ~$70M as funding delivered, Gitcoin has an operational efficiency of around 24%. That is pretty damn good for new kind of organization that is still building three new software platforms, designing a massive marketing push to leverage those platforms, all while in an exceptionally expensive developer market. We do have to keep an eye on this ratio especially if we push off / reduce seasonal scope or round results do not deliver.
The latent potential and cost offset is where I draw a distinction to conclusions from @lefteris and @griff. Systemic focus on costs (which we do not do, but should) is critically important for Gitcoin reputation and for driving out waste - recognizing that DAOs are not efficient. Additionally, market instability and a continued bear market has a high impact/unknown probability risk for the runway.
I think we do have to address the runway question given the impact risk. But given the current runway is sufficient to carry the DAO into the next bull (assuming 3 years left of a four year bear cycle), I would not suggest drastic cost cutting next season. What would make sense is to design in a series of incremental cost cuts that could be triggered in the event that runway drops to predefined levels. Asking workstreams to design-in contingency plans allows them to continue developing the aggressive launch plans - but gives them warning that if times get worse, action (they designate) is going to be taken.
The other side of that equation is income - the latent potential. I do not know that the DAO has any hard plans to capture significant value from the workstreams, the platform, or our brand (FDD might be the exception?). I would look for the DAO to develop a series of income producing building blocks that we could quantifiably hit/miss season on season so we can flip this scrip on this cost/runway discussion.
I do think building plans for cost reduction is time well spent, but I would argue it is equally important to figure out how to build the treasury so that we can increase budgets. And this looks like super-juicy-ripe whitespace to me.
Speaking for myself, I am not trying to be defensive and my apologies if I came across that way. I have a different point of view and I am trying to articulate that point of view using logic and data. I do admit, I am a sarcastic troll by nature - but I try to keep that in check. Most of the time.