📍 Localism Fund | Initial Progress & Reflections Report

[MontyMerlin]

This post is an Initial Progress & Reflections Report covering the founding of Localism Fund and its key developments, results, and initial reflections to date (as of December 15th 2025). It is not intended as a full impact or outcomes report. Further materials are planned, including the collection of grantee reports, impact stories and case studies, on-chain activity analysis across funded programs, and a deeper synthesis of patterns, mechanisms, and lessons learned.

TL;DR

• Localism Fund launched in Q3 2025 during Gitcoin’s GG24 Sensemaking Season, emerging from a convergence between Regen Coordination and OpenCivics. Over $275,000 in total funding is being mobilized, including $175k raised from Gitcoin, CeloPG, Ethereum Foundation, and Ma Earth, plus over $100k in local co-funding.
• Round 01 – Local Grant Programs has allocated $125,000 to support 12 locally led grant programs across multiple regions. All 28 applications received public, criteria-based evaluation reports.
• Round 02 – Local Meetups LATAM launched in partnership with Ethereum Foundation’s Ethereum Everywhere team. With $30,000 to support up to 10 grassroots Ethereum meetups across Latin America, the round has received 37 applications, highlighting strong demand.
• Localism Fund Expert Network has been established as a curated expert community for evaluation, mentorship, and learning. 83 applied, 36 were peer-attested as validated experts via TrustGraph, and 14 are actively contributing to Round 01.
• Key early learnings include the need for stronger eligibility and evaluation protocols, a clearer recognition of the operational intensity of direct-grants models compared to QF-style rounds, and more realistic resourcing for program operations and development.

Overview

About Localism Fund

Localism Fund exists to support credible local networks and place-based groups to nurture political, economic, cultural, and ecological localism, while demonstrating Ethereum as a foundational infrastructure for this purpose. The fund provides grants, guidance, and hands-on support to empower local capacity-building; bridging global tools and knowledge into practical, locally rooted outcomes.

Localism Fund Objectives

• Strengthen communities and economies by empowering local hubs to integrate Ethereum-powered tools into their coordination, governance, and resource flows.
• Advance Ethereum adoption and legitimacy by demonstrating practical, real-world use cases beyond speculation, while growing key on-chain metrics.
• Catalyze tangible local impact across political, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions.
• Build open knowledge commons by documenting and sharing resources that enable replication and scaling of successful local models.
• Support a global-local network that connects diverse local hubs, rounds, and activities into a coherent movement for Ethereum Localism.

Founding Context & Formation

Localism Fund was formed in Q3 2025, during Gitcoin’s GG24 Sensemaking Season, at the intersection of two converging streams of work:

Ethereum Localism x Regen Coordination - Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report

TLDR Ethereum Localism is an emerging opportunity space that can address meaningful mass adoption by embedding Web3 tools (e.g., stablecoins, payments, onchain governance) into local communities and economies—offering real-world legitimacy and utility beyond speculation, and aligning with Gitcoin’s mission. Convened by Regen Coordination, this sensemaking report explores the Ethereum Localism landscape, how it is taking shape, and how Gitcoin could play a catalytic role. Following subseq…

Open Civic Innovation - Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report

TL;DR This proposal outlines the critical need for “Open Civic Innovation” as a dedicated domain allocator within Gitcoin Grants 3.0 (GG24), focused on directing public goods funding towards participatory governance, civic technology, and democratic innovation. This initiative positions Ethereum as the foundational infrastructure for the emerging “civic renaissance,” where decentralized coordination mechanisms enable communities to co-design vital, resilient, and participatory civic systems. Th…

Both sensemaking processes surfaced a shared insight:

Place-based coordination, civic innovation, and local economic infrastructure represent a high-leverage pathway for Ethereum’s next phase of meaningful adoption.

In response, Regen Coordination and OpenCivics came together to found Localism Fund as an independent initiative, with Monty Bryant, Patricia Parkinson, and Benjamin Life stepping into the role of lead operators to develop a clear mandate, positioning, and operating model, see About Localism Fund. This foundation empowered our initial fundraise and the launch of Round 01 (Local Grant Programs), Round 02 (Local Meetups LATAM), and Localism Fund Expert Network.

What follows in this report is a structured account of how our early design decisions translated into practice, what has been achieved so far, and what we are learning — both in terms of early outcomes and experienced operational realities.

Funding Breakdown

Total Funding Mobilised: $275,600

• Initial Raise: $175,000 — Gitcoin $116,667 (66.6%), CeloPG $35,000 (20%), Ethereum Foundation $15,000 (8.6%), Ma Earth $8,333 (4.8%).
  • Round Allocations: $155,000 — $125,000 for Round 01, $30,000 for Round 02.
  • Operations Fee: $20,000 (11.4%) — $12,000 to core operators (Monty, Benjamin, Patricia), $2,500 Karma fee, $5,500 + 10,000 CELO (bonus) to Expert Network.
• Additional Co-Funding: $100,600 — from Round 01 Local Grant Programs.

As a result, Gitcoin’s $116,667 contribution catalyzed an additional $158,933 from ecosystem partners and local co-funding, representing ~2.36× leverage on Gitcoin’s capital and demonstrating how a globally coordinated matching pool can unlock additional buy-in and capital when paired with co-funding requirements and locally led program design.

---

Round 01 | Local Grant Programs

What is it?

A funding round to support locally-led grant programs, where communities secure matching funds and direct resources toward political, economic, cultural, and ecological activities. Each community leverages Ethereum as practical infrastructure, but are empowered to design and deliver funding in ways rooted in their own local context.

Objectives

• Locally Led Design – Support communities to co-create and operate their own local funding programs and infrastructure.
• Impact Portfolio – Support political, cultural, economic, and ecological activities.
• Matching Funds Leverage – Pair global resources with local contributions to deepen buy-in and sustainability.
• Transparent & Credible Process – Operate with clear criteria, open reporting, and community participation.
• On-Chain & Real-World Integration – Demonstrate Ethereum’s role in enabling accountable, locally rooted coordination.

Key Results (to date)

• $125,000 matching pool allocated to support locally led grant programs using Ethereum-based coordination and funding infrastructure.
• 28 complete applications received and reviewed (see Karma Round Portal), each assessed by our expert network against a published rubric and eligibility criteria.
• 100% public evaluation coverage (see Round 01 – Reports & Results) — every application received a written, criteria-based evaluation report, published openly for transparency and learning.
• 12 local grant programs approved for matching, representing a diverse set of regions, themes, and operational models (see table below).
• $100,600 in verified local co-funding secured, demonstrating meaningful local buy-in and commitment.

Allocation Breakdown

Local Grant Program	Local Co-Funding	Matching Results	Total	Status
Regenerant Catalunya	$12,100	$18,000	$30,100	Funded
Regenerate Cascadia: Phase One LHC Grant Program	$8,000	$12,480	$20,480	Funded
ReFi Tanzania: Solar Saving Circles for Sustainable Energy Independence, Financial Sovereignty & Community Resilience	$5,000	$7,800	$12,800	Funded
GEN Ukraine Grant Program 01	$5,000	$7,800	$12,800	Funded
ReFi Design Sprint - Batch 01	$8,500	$9,520	$18,020	Funded
Tech and Sun (TAS) Round	$7,000	$7,840	$14,840	Funded
ReFi Colombia	$7,000	$7,840	$14,840	Funded
Metachrysalis Changemaker Community — Fraser Lowland (Round 01)	$10,000	$11,200	$21,200	Funded
Kolektivo Curaçao - Onchain Island Program	$10,000	$11,200	$21,200	Funded
Greenpill Brasil Commons	$13,000	$14,560	$27,560	Funded
BUILDER INCUBATION FOR AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES IN EAST & WEST AFRICA	$5,000	$5,600	$10,600	Funded
Homewood Housing Circle: Community Renewal & Affordable Housing Platform	$10,000	$11,200	$21,200	Funded
Total	$100,600	$125,000	$225,600

Evaluation Synthesis - key patterns, strengths, & recurring gaps

This section distills what evaluators actually wrote across more than 250 qualitative comments from the Attested Expert Network on Round 01 applications. It surfaces the most common patterns, strengths, and recurring gaps observed – offering a high-level view of how proposals landed in practice, and where future applicants and operators can most easily improve.

• Strong local grounding, but often under-specified: Many applications were clearly rooted in real local needs and communities, yet scopes were frequently too broad or vague (who, what, how many), lowering scores on clarity and feasibility.
• Promising Ethereum alignment, weak on concrete implementation: Evaluators saw genuine intent to use Ethereum as infrastructure, but higher scores went to programs that named specific tools, flows, and on-chain touchpoints; generic “we’ll use blockchain” framing was a recurring gap.
• Co-funding effort was visible, documentation and structure lagged: A number of teams showed real hustle in raising funds, yet fell short on clearly distinguishing hard vs. soft commits, diversifying sources, and presenting transparent, realistic budgets tied to their proposed scope.
• Operations & mechanisms: enthusiasm > operational legibility: Evaluators consistently praised simple, well-sequenced round designs with a clear primary mechanism; overly complex “stacked” mechanism designs or thin operational detail often dragged scores down even when the vision was strong.
• Impact & reporting frameworks were uneven: The best applications combined qualitative stories, basic metrics, and explicit on-chain indicators; many others mentioned “impact” in general terms but lacked a concrete plan for what would be measured, how, and with which tools.
• Team capacity & anchoring were a relative strength, but not universal: Many teams showed credible track records and deep community relationships. Lower scores tended to appear where roles or Web3 expertise were unclear, capacity seemed overstretched relative to ambition, or local anchoring was thin.
• Biggest upside for future cycles: specificity and right‑sizing: Across categories, evaluators signaled that clearer scoping, more concrete Ethereum/tooling plans, better co-funding verification, and more detailed program designs would substantially lift scores without needing radically different ideas.

For the full deep-dive across all four rubric categories, see the Round 01 | Evaluation Synthesis Report.

Key Process & Round Design Reflections

• Co‑Funding (Clarity vs. Inclusivity): Co‑funding was both central to this round and caused confusion: our “liquid, secured capital” standard was not clearly understood by all and often excluded hubs without ready cash secured, even when they had strong in‑kind support or proven track records. Future rounds need clearer definitions (liquid vs in‑kind vs pipeline) and more equitable models (e.g. conditional allocations, better use of reputation and historic flows).
• What We’re Really Funding (Mechanism vs Outcome): The “Local Grant Programs” frame sometimes forced communities into a grant‑mechanism box, even when a mixed strategy (events, coordination, micro‑funds, etc.) might have better served their context. We need to decide whether Localism Fund is funding a narrow mechanism (grant programs) or supporting locally‑led regenerative coordination more broadly, and as such, consider widening the frame toward “Localism Funding Programs.”
• Eligibility Screening and Evaluation Sequencing: In hindsight, we should have conducted upfront eligibility screening before sending applications into detailed expert evaluation. We also saw that many evaluations became static snapshots of programs that were still evolving in co-funding secured, process detail, and overall readiness - coordinating this evolving landscape of context was complex. Future designs should include clearer intake stages, firmer deadlines, and potentially reserved capital for later cycles as programs mature.
• Expert Evaluation Rigor and AI Applications: Expert evaluations were valuable but uneven in rigor, with some scores not fully aligning with deeper due diligence. A contributing factor was the increasing use of AI by applicants to draft grant responses, which in some cases created a strong surface impression without corresponding evidence, specificity, or real operational grounding. This reinforced the need for stronger evaluation protocols, clearer expectations around evidentiary standards, and review practices that distinguish narrative polish from demonstrated capacity.
• Applicant Journey (Generally Positive, But Pain Points on Scope & Co‑Funding): Applicants largely found the docs and application process clear and thorough, and highlighted this as a major strength in their feedback. Main pain points were ambiguity about what exactly is being funded and how co‑funding is counted, plus frustration over abrupt application closure under rolling intake—pointing to a need for sharper framing and more predictable timelines.
• Operations, Tooling & Sustainability: Running Round 01 and the Expert Network via largely manual Notion workflows was highly labor-intensive, and operator compensation underestimated the true cost of the direct-grant model. Future rounds should embed more functionality into tools like Karma and budget more realistically for operator and synthesis work.

Next Steps

• Complete final disbursements and documentation – Finalize payouts for the remaining approved local programs after verification of co-funding and signed Grant Agreements. All completed payouts and co-funding is documented in the public Round 01 Reports & Results.
• Activate mentorship and expert–hub pairing – Continue facilitating matchmaking between Round 01 grantees and members of the Localism Fund Expert Network so that local programs receive targeted support on governance, tooling, impact reporting, and co-funding strategy during planning, delivery, and execution.
• Maintain bi‑weekly grantee support sessions – Continue ongoing group Q&A and hands-on support calls for operators and experts, see Localism Fund Luma.
• Track progress and publish case studies – Collect interim reports, impact stories, and on‑chain activity from each local program, and develop a set of in-depth case studies where appropriate. These will feed into a deeper synthesis and reflections report planned for March 2026.
• Strengthen feedback loops with tooling providers – Coordinate structured feedback sessions with Karma, TrustGraph, and other tool builders used in Round 01, as well as tools adopted by local programs, to inform UX improvements, new feature development, and better interoperability for future rounds.
• Feed learnings into future Localism Fund cycles – Use Round 01 insights (evaluation rubric performance, co‑funding patterns, operational bottlenecks, and tooling learnings) to refine criteria, processes, and support structures for subsequent Localism Fund rounds and initiatives.

---

Round 02 - Local Meetups LATAM

What is it?

A collaborative grant round between Ethereum Everywhere and Localism Fund to support grassroots Ethereum-empowered local networks across Latin America (LATAM) in hosting consistent, recurring meetups over one year following Devconnect 2025.

Objectives

• Sustain Post-Devconnect Momentum – Maintain energy, visibility, and continuity across grassroots LATAM Ethereum communities beyond Devconnect Buenos Aires 2025.
• Foster Grassroots Communities – Support the development of locally rooted Ethereum communities by nurturing collaboration, leadership, relationship-building, and ongoing community connection.
• Expand Ethereum Education and Participation – Support consistent spaces for learning, dialogue, and experimentation across technical, cultural, and social dimensions of the Ethereum ecosystem.
• Strengthen Ethereum Localism – Develop regional capacity to organize meaningfully in their own places and leverage Ethereum to advance political, economic, cultural, and ecological localism.

Key Results (to date)

• $30,000 funding pool being allocated to support recurring, grassroots Ethereum meetups across LATAM over a 12-month period.
• 37 complete applications received (see Karma Round Portal) from local organizers across the region, indicating strong interest and demand relative to the modest grant size.
• 10 meetup organizers in final selection (in collaboration with Ethereum Everywhere), representing a mix of emerging and early-stage local communities.

Allocation Results

The full set of evaluation summaries, methodology, and synthesis insights for Round 02 are published here:

Round 02 | Results & Reports.

This includes: evaluation summary reports for each of the 10 preliminarily approved meetup organizers as well as a shared “Round 02 — Evaluation Methodology & Common Improvement Areas” document, outlining the review framework and patterns observed.

Next Steps

• Finalize selection & publish cohort – Complete the final review, evaluation, selection and disbursements to the 10 final grantees, and publish the full list of selected applicants and allocations in this forum post.
• Set up quarterly reporting & payout rhythm – Use Karma to operationalize a simple cadence of quarterly updates (meetup summaries, photos, attendance, partnerships, next‑quarter plans) that gate subsequent prospective disbursements through Q4 2026.
• Provide ongoing grantee support – Coordinate light‑touch ongoing support for meetup organizers (EE + Localism Fund), including clarification on checklists, branding, budgeting, and community health, and maintain open channels via Telegram and shared docs.
• Synthesize progress & share learnings – Compile an interim reflection on early results (e.g. for March 2026) and, at the end of 2026, publish a final report on key outcomes, patterns, and lessons from Local Meetups LATAM as a reusable model for future regional meetup rounds.

Key Process & Round Design Reflections

• Funding level, incentives, and who this round is “for”: The $3,000/year (~$250–375/meetup) design sparked significant pushback from parts of the LATAM ecosystem, especially more established organizers who saw it as misaligned with current costs, opportunity costs, and the real admin/reporting burden. Ethereum Everywhere, however, had intentionally chosen this level based on prior regional context and a strategic focus on small, lightweight, content‑first community meetups, aiming to avoid reproducing patterns of oversized grants, event luxury spending, and misaligned incentives. In practice, our 37 applications demonstrated that while the amount is too low for some mature/larger hubs, it remains compelling enough for smaller or emerging communities who can leverage free/low‑cost venues and additional local sponsorships.
• Scope, narrative, and upfront framing: Some critique pointed to a mismatch between the broad program description (Ethereum research / education / ecosystem topics) and what many organizers in LATAM currently need (sustained physical spaces, ops roles, and territory‑tied use cases). The intention was a narrow, simple format—recurring, low‑friction meetups, not larger programs or hub funding—but this wasn’t always legible, especially against a backdrop of other chains and industries offering larger, more targeted grants. Clearer upfront language about intended scale, simplicity, and target segment (smaller meetups, early‑stage networks, content‑first gatherings) would likely have reduced friction while still holding the principled stance on grant size and ethos.
• Admin load, evaluation volume & AI‑assisted tooling: Receiving 37 applications created a meaningful review and evaluation workload, even for a relatively small pool. This round became a live testbed for combining Karma GAP with more sophisticated AI prompts and models to support screening, synthesis, and feedback. A key learning is that getting AI to add real value here is non‑trivial: it requires careful prompt design, iteration, and clear guardrails to avoid shallow or misleading outputs. Once tuned, though, AI‑assisted evaluation shows promise as a scalable way to surface patterns, draft structured feedback, and support scoring—with humans still firmly in the loop for judgment and edge cases.
• Co‑governance & partnership process under time pressure: Co‑running a round between Ethereum Everywhere and Localism Fund was a big learning experience in shared stewardship. Having a dedicated DNA document worked well as a single internal “source of truth” for scope, messaging, criteria, funding model, and roles, and helped blend the needs and constraints of both parties. The hardest part was that Gitcoin needed our final raise numbers on a tight timeline in order to determine their GG24 allocations, which compressed the window for LF and EE to negotiate and finalize the partnership agreement and round design; with more lead time for joint design, organizer consultation, and expectation‑setting, we could have reduced friction and pressure.

Overall, Localism Fund remains excited to keep exploring deeper partnership with Ethereum Foundation and Ethereum Everywhere, as the missions are strongly aligned and there is clear potential for more intentionally layered, complementary funding pathways across the ecosystem.

---

Expert Network

What is it?

The Localism Fund Expert Network is a peer‑attested collective of practitioners working at the intersection of localism, grant‑making, and Ethereum‑based coordination. Experts are onboarded through an open application and TrustGraph‑based attestation process. Together, they form a shared expert commons that connects global infrastructure with locally grounded funding programs.

TrustGraph

Objectives

• Ensure Credible Evaluation — Maintain a high standard of integrity and contextual awareness in assessing local hub proposals and funding programs.
• Provide Mentorship & Operational Support — Offer guidance, feedback, and practical assistance to help local hubs design, launch, and manage their programs and activities effectively.
• Strengthen Web3 Tooling Feedback Loops — Gather insights from real-world use to improve the usability, accessibility, and reliability of Ethereum-based coordination and funding tools that are applied locally.
• Build Onchain Reputation & Recognition — Use badges and attestations to reward expert contributions, strengthen trust in evaluation processes, and grow a transparent, portable expert reputation layer across the ecosystem.
• Foster Ecosystem Learning & Knowledge Sharing — Capture and circulate key insights, methodologies, and playbooks from each round to improve future funding cycles and accelerate the practice of Ethereum Localism.

Key Results

• 83 applications to join the Expert Network, visible in the Expert Network Database.
  

  

• 36 experts peer‑validated through TrustGraph to become official members.
  

  

• 14 experts selected for active Round 01 contribution (evaluation, feedback, and early mentorship).

Key Reflections

• Peer‑validated expert commons established, but still early‑stage: Round 01 successfully stood up a functioning, peer‑attested network with clear eligibility criteria, contribution tiers, and an ongoing onboarding process. The basic model works and provides a credible alternative to purely top‑down or token‑weighted governance.
• TrustGraph shows real promise, with uneven participation and equity questions: The first TrustGraph prototype validated 36 experts from 68 members and 418 attestations, demonstrating meaningful peer‑generated validation and strong conceptual appetite for trust‑based governance. At the same time, participation was skewed (44% sent zero attestations, seeds sent far more than others), and people with fewer pre‑existing ties felt disadvantaged—highlighting the need for better onboarding, clearer explanations of how trust propagates, and explicit safeguards for equity and inclusion.
• Legitimacy depends on guidance, communication, and UX: Experts who actively gave/received attestations were more likely to see the system as fair and useful; those less engaged were often unsure, citing unclear timelines, expectations, and inner workings of the scoring/validation process. Future iterations need clearer reviewer guidance, improved copywriting and UI, more transparent communication around network formation, and practical examples of how TrustGraph outputs feed into real governance decisions.
• High potential across grassroots, mutual‑aid, and DAO ecosystems: Surveyed participants expressed strong interest in deploying TrustGraph in grassroots organizing, mutual aid networks, and DAOs, suggesting a broad early‑adopter base beyond Localism Fund itself. This first deployment provides a baseline for measuring future improvements in fairness, engagement, and governance effectiveness, and positions the Expert Network as a reusable governance primitive for aligned ecosystems.

See TrustGraph - Evaluation Report / December 16, 2025 for full evaluation and reflections!

Next Steps

• Complete Round 01 Expert Compensation – Support experts to self‑assess their contribution tiers (alongside feedback from local hubs), confirm tiers in consent with operators, and finalize payouts and expert badge issuance.
• Synthesize expert learnings and tooling feedback – Compile evaluation insights, mentorship reflections, and tool‑level feedback to inform future Localism Fund rounds and the evolution of core coordination tools.
• Expand and deepen the network (social + technical) — Continue onboarding new experts and refreshing attestations via TrustGraph, while actively developing the social infrastructure: shared rituals (e.g. onboarding and renewal moments), clear participation cadences, cultural norms around giving/receiving attestations, and lightweight facilitation to ensure trust signals are meaningfully maintained.
• Position the network as reusable public infrastructure – Explore ways for aligned partners and future funding rounds (within and beyond Localism Fund) to draw on the Expert Network as a shared, open evaluation and mentorship commons.

Conclusion

Localism Fund’s first months of operation demonstrate both the promise and the complexity of funding Ethereum-enabled, place-based coordination at scale. In a short period, the fund has mobilized meaningful capital, supported diverse locally led programs, established a credible expert network, and surfaced concrete evidence that demand for Ethereum-aligned localism infrastructure is real and growing. At the same time, these early rounds underscore that direct, locally grounded grantmaking is demanding work—operationally, cognitively, and socially.

Additionally, many of the most important outcomes of our work here — local economic flows, on-chain coordination patterns, sustained community activity, and long-term legitimacy — will only become visible over the coming months as funded grantees execute and report back. Our focus now is on closing the loop: supporting grantees through delivery, publishing deeper case studies, and iterating toward funding processes and mechanisms that remain open, fair, and scalable. If done well, this work can contribute not only to stronger local communities, but also to a more credible, legible role for Ethereum as infrastructure for real-world coordination and regeneration.

Further reflections and materials will follow as our rounds progress and conclude - stay tuned!

[MontyMerlin]

---

Additional Meta Reflection: Access, Membranes & Scale

Beyond the specific process and round design learnings outlined above, our experiences have surfaced a deeper, structural tension that becomes increasingly important as Localism Fund scales:

how to remain open and discoverable to under-networked local actors while also preserving review rigor and staying within realistic operator capacity?

In traditional grant-making, this challenge is well known. As application volume outpaces funding and review capacity, programs tend to drift toward one (or more) familiar failure modes:

• Becoming closed — shifting to invite-only networks or informal insider access to control volume.
• Becoming bureaucratic — adding layers of forms, compliance checks, and procedural hoops that raise barriers for applicants and operators alike.
• Becoming shallow — relying on fast scoring or surface-level review that disproportionately rewards polished narratives over real capacity or evidence.

What makes this tension even more acute today is a shift in the signal environment. AI-assisted grant writing increases the length, baseline polish and apparent coherence of applications, reducing the informational value of narrative quality as an indicator of real capability. Under the pressure of scale, this amplifies the risk of shallow review (where polish is mistaken for substance) and bureaucratic over-correction (where more hoops are added to compensate), while simultaneously increasing the temptation to close open access altogether.

Rather than defaulting toward closure, procedural overload, or shallow review, this tension can could potentially be addressed through explicit design choices and innovation:

• Stage-gate review effort — use enhanced eligibility and fit screening before deep evaluation.
• Shift from narrative to evidence — prioritize verifiable signals (e.g. links to prior outputs) over polished writing.
• Design for capacity — align intake size, review depth, and allocation models with real operator bandwidth.
• Use AI as assistive infrastructure — apply carefully constrained AI to support early screening, evidence checks, clustering, and synthesis, while keeping final judgments, edge cases, and accountability firmly human-led.
• Explore attested access — reputation/attestation networks (e.g. using TrustGraph) could create permeable membranes where new entrants can join, but credibility is legible and review depth is matched to risk.

Handled well, these design choices collectively shape the “membrane” of the grant programs — determining how permeable it is to new entrants, how much scrutiny applications receive at different stages, and how operator capacity is protected without defaulting to closure or bureaucracy.

[Swiftevo]

Thanks for the reflections and the detail report!!

There are lots of part i loved so much and being touch. e.g.
Additional Meta Reflection
Key Reflections for round 1 and 2 and the TrustGraph

Those are the pain points for myself faced daily and Monty gave a clear and practicel strategy on how to solve it.

[MontyMerlin]

Round 02 Allocation Results (Preliminary)

The full set of evaluation summaries, methodology, and synthesis insights for Round 02 are published here:

Round 02 | Results & Reports.

This includes: evaluation summary reports for each of the 10 preliminarily approved meetup organizers as well as a shared “Round 02 — Evaluation Methodology & Common Improvement Areas” document, outlining the review framework and patterns observed.

Meetup Name	Country	Location	Status
La Movida Regia: Sultana Descentralizada	Mexico	Monterrey	Preliminary Approved
Ethereum Meetups Frutales	Mexico	Mexico City, Guadalajara, Puebla	Preliminary Approved
ETHFloripa Community Meetups	Brazil	Florianópolis	Preliminary Approved
ERC55 Monthly Meetups	Brazil	São Paulo	Preliminary Approved
Web3 Café	Brazil	Rio de Janeiro	Preliminary Approved
Patagonia Pulse Ethereum Meetups	Argentina	Buenos Aires	Preliminary Approved
Cripto Café Costa Rica	Costa Rica	San José	Preliminary Approved
ETH Ecuador Series	Ecuador	Quito, Guayaquil, Cuenca	Preliminary Approved
Ethereum Cartagena	Colombia	Cartagena	Preliminary Approved
Ethereum Lab	Bolivia	Santa Cruz de la Sierra	Preliminary Approved

Each preliminarily approved meetup must complete a Post-Approval Form to confirm their Karma project used for reporting, a valid Ethereum mainnet payout address, and shared understanding of grant terms before receiving funds. An initial $750 USD will be disbursed once the form is completed and reviewed. The remaining funds (up to $3,000 USD total) will be released quarterly, contingent on activity and milestone updates submitted via Karma. This structure keeps the process lightweight while supporting accountability and continuity over time.

[Jaf]

For us at Ethereum Everywhere, working alongside the Localism Fund during Round 02 - Local Meetups LATAM was a truly amazing experience. From the very early planning and strategy conversations all the way through project selection, the collaboration felt smooth, aligned, and genuinely collaborative. There was a strong sense that everyone involved was pulling in the same direction: supporting grassroots Ethereum communities in a thoughtful and intentional way.

Selecting the final group of meetup organizers was not easy at all. The level of interest was high, and there were many strong applications across the region, which made the internal conversations and sense-making process challenging. After a lot of back-and-forth and careful thinking, we landed on a set of projects that we genuinely believe can create real impact and long-term momentum in their local communities.

One particularly interesting aspect of the round was that, in some cases, multiple solid projects came from the same city. Instead of treating that as a downside, we actively looked for ways to encourage synergies between teams, finding complementary paths that could strengthen local ecosystems rather than fragment them.

We’re excited to see how these communities continue to grow and evolve, and we’re grateful for the opportunity to collaborate so closely with the Localism Fund on this round.

Thank you @MontyMerlin for all your help and guidance in making this a succes!