[My Vision for Gitcoin 3.0] Network-First Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems

IMPORTANT - This is Owocki’s vision for Gitcoin 3.0. Digest it, debate, it fork it, make changes. Nothing is official until ratified by governance!!

Gitcoin is entering a new era— what I call Gitcoin 3.0.

While the Gitcoin 1.0 era (2017-2021) was a centralized company, and the Gitcoin 2.0 era (2021-2025) attempted to turn the company to a DAO but that didnt work, Gitcoin 3.0 starts fresh with a new GG program design for 2025 - 2030.

My Vision for Gitcoin 3.0

Network-First Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems

TLDR

Gitcoin 3.0 features a well-funded treasury (~$22M for 5+ years runway),which we can use to power a Network-First Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems.

The core offering is GG (the Gitcoin Grant program), which will identify + fund people who solve Ethereum’s biggest problems. Like our Gitcoin 2.0 era GG rounds, the Gitcoin 3.0 era GG rounds occur twice or thrice yearly. But unlike the Gitcoin 2.0 era, we are not just quadratic funding anymore.

The GG program is designed to stimulate the identification + funding of Ethereum’s biggest problems. It does so by allowing network leaders to leverage onchain capital allocation mechanisms (such as QF, Retro Funding, Deep Funding, and more), and Gitcoin’s matching pool + audience, to identify + solve Ethereum’s biggest problems.

The GG program promotes competition among diverse capital allocators, creating a schelling point around which forward builder energy can be accelerated through experimentation, learning, and innovation.

You are invited to participate in Gitcoin 3.0 and help us Fund What Matters in Ethereum.

Welcome to Gitcoin 3.0

Gitcoin 3.0 is a Network-First Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems

Here are six key things you need to know (est read time: six minutes)

1. Treasury is Funded for Years

Gitcoin’s treasury is well-capitalized with about $22m worth of liquid assets, ensuring sustainability and strategic growth for the next five years.

Of the $22m, about $11m sits in the DAO treasury (1 2), and $11m sits in the matching pool. The breakdown of assets: $6m worth of ETH, $860k worth of ENS, $3.3m in gtc, $500k in rad, $10m of stables, and a handful of long tail assets.

2. Gitcoin 3.0 - A Schelling Point for Identifying + Solving Ethereum’s Biggest Problems

Gitcoin 3.0 is a Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems. As we demonstrate our ability to identify + fund these problems, it will become a schelling point focused on Ethereum’s most pressing challenges.

We will use root-level treasury routing mechanisms Grants Ships or Dedicated Domain Allocators at the root of the treasury to identify problem domains and fund them. These domains would be things that benefit all Ethereans - accelerating adoption, supporting app layer builders, fixing ux issues, stuff like that.

This domain routing structure will enable parties within the Etherum ecosystem to organize capital allocation campaigns (rounds)— The capital will no longer be allocated only by Grants Lab’s technology via QF. These rounds can now reflect the diversity of Ethereum’s values + innovative approaches.

Now that no one software business has a monopoly on the Gitcoin Grants program, we get to reimagine it as a pluralistic, decentralized, network-run engine for capital allocation to solve those problems. We can finally build the Grants Program Ethereum deserves — one rooted in the best of the Ethereum ecosystem has to offer – experimentation, plurality, competition, legitimacy, and provable impact.

We already witnessed the momentum of this beginning in GG23, GG’s first-ever multi-mechanism program, rooted in a strong conviction that different approaches are needed for various stages of builders’ growth.

This is Gitcoin’s next chapter: not a product, but a program. Not a software business, but a schelling point for collective action directed at Identifying + Solving Ethereum’s Biggest Problems.

3. Competition Creates Better Allocation

In Gitcoin 2.0, Grants Labs (and its predecessors) had a monopoly on software development for the Gitcoin ecosystem. As a result, there was no competitive pressure to explore things outside of what Grants Labs could do.

Competition within Gitcoin 3.0 is not only encouraged—it’s a core feature. Through the root level treasury allocation mechanism, multiple teams propose and manage grant rounds using varied allocation mechanisms. Teams compete based on performance, community impact, and innovation.

How will these teams be funded? To attract and support financial teams that are working on exploring this design space, we should plan to financially reward the administrators of these capital allocation campaigns. If teams get the nod to allocate the capital, they can charge fees (I prefer Fair Fees) on top of the Total Value Flowed(TFW). And they get to distribute their software to Gitcoin’s network of donors, fans, and investors.

This model prevents monopolization, encourages continuous experimentation, and ongoing accountability. Successful teams can be rewarded with higher allocations and greater influence in future cycles, fostering a healthy competitive ecosystem that dynamically aligns incentives with Ethereum’s best interests.

This new pluralism will create market pressure to allow the best mechanisms to rise to the top. Over time, the program will become a fulcrum that leverages collective intelligence to identify Ethereum’s biggest problems through varied perspectives and mechanisms, and allocates capital against them – ensuring capital allocation aligns closely with Ethereum’s evolving needs.

This container is designed to evolve over time. As we gain more of a reputation of momentum over time, the system reflexively grows as more Ethereum community members pour resources into it.

How will we know it’s working?

When ecosystem treasuries start funding experiments on Gitcoin again. The Gitcoin Grants program has not been able to seriously raise outside funds since about ~ GG12. This could change as Gitcoin becomes a beacon of Innovation and undeniable momentum again; and especially we can raise money from L2s to have experiments happen on their chain. This is already starting to happen in GG23, as we’ve seen the community rounds be funded by Celo, Gitcoin, West, and the EF.

GG becomes a breeding ground for innovation. A nice benefit of this system is that we’re going to have a proving ground for the best new capital allocation mechanisms to show off their abilities.

Gitcoin’s past was as a proving ground for QF as built by Owocki + team, the future is a proving ground for whatever innovative mechanism YOU, ethereum ecosystem member, can invent…

This is what this evolution looks like.

As more mechanisms are tried and proved out, Gitcoin 3.0 will evolve more complexity, but its actually more simple from the program perspective: Gitcoin just sets out the funds and evaluation criteria for their deployment- and let round operators + the software engineers they work with handle the heavy lift of running it + operating the rounds.

If we do it right we (the GG program) just has to build the system that forces evolutionary pressure on the round operators & software to get better. By choosing what forks to kill vs what to fund, in an iterative, communicative, but results-oriented way, we’re creating a competitive evolutionary pressure on the software + round providers to find the ways to create the most value.

Over time, the evolutionary selection pressure will evolve new forms of mechanisms that we in 2025 can only dream of.

The mechanisms that wagmi, evolve. The ones that ngmi, they stop consuming resources.

4. The Gitcoin 3.0 Round Cycle

Gitcoin 3.0 will be built around a robust, iterative four-step cycle for learning as we’re solving Ethereum’s largest problems:

  • Sensemaking: Engaging the community via platforms like Twitter Spaces, governance forums, conferences, polls, or other signal-processing systems to identify important challenges.
  • Proposals: Developing diverse and innovative capital allocation proposals through open community collaboration, which are voted on by GTC stewards. Attributes of a good proposal:
    • Listening first
    • Oriented around a problem
    • Posted well ahead of voting time to allow for deliberation.
    • Has a qualified team, defined scope, mechanism, and funding.
    • Solves for good Grantee experience
    • Gitcoin aligned
  • Execution: Implementing selected proposals via pluralistic capital allocation methods. Execution of the round end to end is the responsibility of the round operators, whereas Gitcoin becomes a support vehicle for amplifying the most important messages and routing people to the rounds.
  • Learning: Evaluating outcomes transparently, iteratively improving through feedback and community voting. (GTC)

This cycle repeats round over round, enhancing Gitcoin’s adaptive capacity and responsiveness to the community’s evolving priorities, ultimately increasing it’s utility to Ethereum…

5. Financial Longevity

Through the rebirth of Gitcoin, I am hopeful that we find a new place of relevance and impact in the 2025-2030 cycle. From there, we can pursue a more successful path towards financial longevity.

Things we’re doing now:

  1. Cockroach mode - Very low burn rate from the DAO treasury.
  2. Raising more money for the funding pools.
  3. Ongoing treasury management and investments of the treasury funds to increase runway.

Things we could do:

  1. GTC Utility - including (but not limited to) Staking.
  2. Gitcoin gaining upside in capital allocation mechanisms Gitcoin accelerates.
  3. Services - running Gitcoin 3.0 style campaigns for other ecosystems.

6. How you can be involved

If you have an opinion about Ethereum’s biggest problems, participate in our ongoing sensemaking engagements.

If you’re building an onchain capital allocation mechanism which can help solve one of the problems, submit a proposal to do so.

If you’re a builder who is adding value to the Ethereum ecosystem, apply for funding in GG24.

Everyone else, support those that are doing the above work.

Repeat until ETH is $10k.

Conclusion

Gitcoin 3.0 represents a significant evolution—let’s Fund What Matters to Ethereum. Lets build a Funding Festival for Ethereum’s Biggest Problems.

Appendix A - Domains + Problems Owocki is Personally Excited About

  • Acceleration for the App Layer: Using novel capital allocation to accelerate apps that create the most measurable value at the app layer.
  • Acceleration for the Adoption: Using novel capital allocation to accelerate initiatives that get more people onboarded.
  • Funding Research Problems - Partnering with our friends at the Ethereum Foundation to help our community direct their $$$ flows to the most important Research Problems.
  • Funding Creators- Making sure that creators, artists, storytellers, understand why Ethereum is so important to the future, and have the resources equipped to tell that story.
  • Futarchy for the App Layer: Using prediction markets or voting-based signals to allocate capital to apps that create the most measurable value for Ethereum.
  • Ethereum Localism: Regional, culture-aware capital allocation that makes funding feel human, rooted, and relevant - and enables marketing of Ethereum to the real world. Think: public goods funding meets your local community garden.
  • Bold Experiments That we’ve not yet dreamed of yet: Commitments pooling, quadratic streaming, retroactive tournaments, hypercerts, grants DAOs, interchain grants, direct to contract incentives, intents-based capital allocations. The list goes on. Now’s the time to let 100 experiments bloom and to begin to mature the best ones…

Appendix B - FAQ

When is GG24? Probably Late Summer or Early Autumn, keep an eye on @gitcoin on twitter or gov.gitcoin.co

How often will GG rounds be? Probably thrice yearly. Maybe more if we decide to do minor more experiential activations (maybe we do a GG23.1 focused on AI capital allocation, anyone?)?

How did GG23 go? Pretty well, listen to the twitter spaces about some of the coolest stuff we did.

Without Grants Stack, how will you do QF rounds? Retro rounds? We’re figuring that out. If you have a QF round or retro round software you want to bootstrap, lets talk…

Is Gitcoin still a DAO? Yep.

I want to get involved, how can I? Keep an eye on @gitcoin on twitter, or DM @owocki for partnerships. .

Why aren’t there more details on [my pet thing]? Let us cook pls. But feel free to @ me on twitter and let me know all about your pet thing.

You guys fucked something up years ago, and I’ve always held it against you. We’re sorry we did that. Sometimes doing things means you do it imperfectly. We hope you’ll give Gitcoin 3.0 a try anyway.

Is Gitcoin 3.0 communist? We regret to inform you that Grant the Gitcoin Communist placed dead last in our GG23 Deep Gov AI Politician Pilot. On the plus side, Panda the Regenerator and Luna the Open-Source Capitalist don’t seem so bad.

7 Likes

Hi Kevin, interested to follow Gitcoin 3.0 discussion as I too have been reflecting over the past week.

This is a situation where a lot of smart people can look at (or live through) the same conditions and come out with slightly different learnings - OK, natural, and an evolutionary strength for humans. cool.

I interpret the suggested pivot to sponsoring the Ethereum community of builders to take on these problems as implying that the fault in the previous approach was that the group working these problems were too narrowly represented. I have concerns that the wave of tools created by this new approach will be even more disjointed and unbroadly useful than before. I am concerned this approach will overindex on problems the remaining Gitcoin team and idea-heavy crypto twitter finds interesting and potentially useful, over things useful and being asked for today.

I think it was great there was an opportunity for a talented team to be forced to build software useful to Gitcoin and other people to continue to exist. I still think this was a good approach, and the re-focusing Grants Lab brought about over the past 6 months once this became the raison d’etre made a ton of sense. Its unfortunate an incredible amount of cash was burned before finding this framing, and that the team was making decisions around the expectation of more runway than turned out to be realistic.

I would feel more confidence in hearing how Gitcoin will decide what problems to pursue moving forward. If you’re working on the wrong thing, details of execution don’t matter. With the goal of sustainability very on-the-mind, I would encourage Gitcoin 3.0 to minimize burn while finding its new raison d’etre. As an org that has reinvented itself almost continuously, I don’t believe returning to an earlier focus is obviously preferable; though I understand it necessary. So lets maximize our learnings and set up 3.0 for success.

Henry

3 Likes

Thanks for laying this out so clearly, Owocki. I’ve been following the Gitcoin 3.0 conversations and really appreciate the clarity and energy in this direction.

What I’m most excited about is the move towards sensemaking as a deliberate part of the cycle. Creating space to listen, reflect, and map what matters before launching into solutions feels like a needed shift, especially after years of high-velocity building. This is what good community infrastructure should do.

A few things I’m still sitting with:

Who are the round operators in this next chapter? Will there be shared principles or agreements around trust and alignment? It sounds like we’re moving toward a more plural and decentralised approach, but I’m curious how we hold coherence across rounds without defaulting back to central control.

I’m also interested in how we help people navigate this expanding ecosystem. As more mechanisms and domains emerge, how do contributors and communities find the right entry points? What does legitimacy look like when there are many different truths about what Ethereum’s “biggest problems” are?

Personally, I’d love to see Gitcoin 3.0 invest in the conditions for good decision-making, not just capital flows. That means funding relational work, not just software. Trust, context, and shared meaning are hard to build, but they’re what make funding systems actually useful.

Looking forward to contributing more to this conversation and learning alongside others who care about making this work! (I am slightly new here - but been following for a long-time. So maybe some of this is answered already; sorry!)

3 Likes

Thank you Owocki, this vision for Gitcoin 3.0 changes a lot.

The shift to a network-first Funding Festival, and doing that leveraging a $22M treasury to tackle Ethereum’s biggest problems feels like a bold step toward pluralistic capital allocation.

I’m particularly excited about the opportunity to build a QF tool, although I kind of wished Grants stack would still be in use, I need clarity on why Grants Stack is still being wound down, aren’t using QF at all anymore :woman_shrugging:t4:

I have a question on how you envision balancing experimentation with grantee experience in GG24, especially without Grants Stack? I’m eager to dive into sensemaking discussions and make contributions and executions.

In all, I’m excited about building this schelling point with Gitcoin!

2 Likes

Theres a whole post on this :slight_smile: Focusing Gitcoin's Future: Sunsetting Grants Stack [EoL May 2025]

It does sound like well need a QF tool in GG24, and I welcome builders who want to power that to talk to @MathildaDV

Yes,

I think this is an important muscle to build in the next chapter.

I think @MathildaDV may have answers to this questino.

Is there anyone doing this well now you think we should take inspiration from?

Yes, this is a really great insight. I think that there is work to do to figure out how to make these tools cohere technically (and maybe visually too)

So the word “Ethereums Biggest Problems” is purposefully and vague. Does big = size in $$$ impact? Does big = other thing? I think that part of our sensemaking ritual were going to have to cohere on exactly how we compare the apples and oranges of different problem types.

:pray:

1 Like

Thanks for your reply. Tricky question but I think there is inspiration from outside Web3 GitCoin could build from:

  • Local Area Coordination: A public sector model where coordinators work long-term within neighbourhoods to build trust, bridge services, and support people to live well. It’s slow, relational work that reduces demand on systems by resourcing community connections instead.

  • Enspiral & Loomio: A network of co-operatives that build both tools and governance culture. Loomio supports consent-based decision-making, but what makes it work is the emphasis on facilitation, shared context, and decision-making as a craft, not a transaction.

  • Metagov: Building composable governance tooling, but also thinking about the legitimacy layer; how decisions gain meaning across contexts and communities. They have done a lot of thinking around the Web3 space already… maybe worth asking the community!

In Web3, I think it is still emerging / being worked out. But it’s the area I think a lot of people anre excited to contribute to… resourcing trust and sensemaking as core infrastructure.

Overall, I loved the approach, want to reaffirm if I got it right, or maybe some questions to think about.

We want to make it Etherum builder first fund. Since I have always associated public goods with gitcoin more than gitcoin to etheerum so as per me,

Gitcoin 1.0 meant public good == open source tooling,
Gitcoin 2.0 meant public goods == decentralized digital + physical impact driven structures,
Gitcoin 3.0 will mean public goods == Built on Etheruem tooling

Built on etheruem tooling – without specific focus on sub-theme or problems?
So gitcoin is streamlining its goal and governance but expanding on capital allocation basis, operations. Including outsourcing its own stack to open community.
Overall Eth-first community gets more power and control – if they own GTC?

For round operators and grant protocols – it will work like a marketplace, designed to evolve by competition – no bias.

What were the major reasons/learnings – to my knowledge, service-based charges, percentage of TFW, part funds from hackathon and GR, efforts to save gas fees, request for funds from matured funded projects, all were mostly denied – so what can be expected to change here?

Gitcoin on its own,

  1. shills wherever possible, identifies gaps, gather community thoughts
  2. it will try to come up with gitcoin community voted capitol allocation mechanism for funding etheruem builders – and then leave it up to round operators for execution
  3. Then again draft learning, adapt feedback by GTC based voting and improve mechanism
    Why is 2 & 3 required? – why not keep publishing findings as a community irrespective of attaching them to a specific voting flow and releases to round operators? (I see it as we ask students to bring their own question paper, but we print one too as a teacher)

What GTC utility can we implement? — trust-futarchy token by curation or delegations, staking in grant pools, projects?
What services for what ecosystems? outside etheruem?

One of my learnings from early work with GitcoinDAO was that for any decentralized coordination
experimentation needs to bounded by metrics and limited to x%
too much vision discussion, too few execution discussions
projects dont always needs funds – they need resources and access
funds needs to be distributed by milestones and impact
and the best of all

To perceive is said to be the lowest form of knowledge, and impact is even harder to perceive.

1 Like

We appreciate the clear pivot toward a pluralistic “Funding Festival” and fully share the vision of letting multiple capital allocation mechanisms compete and evolve. However, we worry that the planned incentive structure may under resource the teams who will actually build and operate these novel mechanisms within this competitive environment.

In Gitcoin 2.0 the ecosystem concentrated its tooling budget in Grants Lab; Gitcoin 3.0 moves toward broad competition. Competition is healthy, but if fees end up as the only income stream, each operator may receive only a thin slice of capital flow, insufficient to cover serious R&D, security reviews, or ongoing maintenance. The risk is a proliferation of under-funded experiments that stall before they mature.

We therefore propose a two-layer incentive structure
1. Seed grants: upfront, milestone-based funding that gives experimental round operators and tooling teams the minimum runway needed to reach a working MVP and collect initial data.
2. Performance upside: once live, operators would earn fair fees or success-based bonuses linked to Total Value Flowed or measured impact, keeping evolutionary pressure while ensuring sustainability.

Also, the proposal notes fees from operating grant programs for external ecosystems, yet we are unsure this alone can sustain or expand Gitcoin’s work. We believe additional revenue streams will be important, and we would like to hear your thinking on this point, what ideas or early experiments are on the table to ensure Gitcoin can keep growing while funding what matters.

Above all, we support this direction and are eager to help it succeed. Many implementation details will be needed later, but at this stage our primary concerns are guaranteeing that experimental teams have sufficient incentives to engage and thrive, and additional revenue streams.

1 Like

I’d encourage you to fork the [fair fees] spreadsheet (https://x.com/owocki/status/1915401609267253394) and play with the variables to see what you think is workable, coming back with a fork of the spreadsheet that has economics you think would work.

I think its worth exploring additional revenue streams inside and outside of Gitcoin. If these tools are good at flowing funds to the right places, then Gitcoin won’t be the only customer - just one of the first.

The “performance upside” in the current model is to get to distribute the capital (and your tooling) through Gitcoin’s network at all. eg teams whose software doesnt work or doesnt have PMF don’t get to participate.

We can explore ideas here, though I will say that I am pretty set on keeping the model simple as possible to start in GG24. This will be a big reboot, and I want to follow Galls law here (Gall’s Law states that a complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.). For that reason I think just forking the fair fees formula and using it with different variables is more attractive than adding more incentive schemes.

Regarding seed grants, I do wonder about this. I can see the value of having a seed grant if there is a category of tooling or round operations that doesnt exist yet. Though I’m mindful that many software products have been bootstrap without grants from Gitcoin, and we’ve seen lots of innovation from lean teams in QF, Retro Funding, Futarchy, Domain Allocation, etc. I do know that Gitcoin has given out many grants in the past and is feeling fatigue from that. And the culture of giving away grants has (1) led to Gitcoins treasury to decrease (2) created a culture where people are dependent on grants for ongoing survival - which is not a good model in a long bear market (3) not having Gitcoin alignment. One alternative model that is attractive to me is doing seed investments into teams, wherein Gitcoin gets upside in the project that it is helping to accelerate through distributing it through it’s network.

Just put together this nice little visual showing how all of the parts fit together. Feedback welcome.

Grantee experience and the transition is very top of mind for me. Even though these strategies that are outlined don’t go into detail on how we’re all thinking of this, it’s going to be important to ensure that our program remains at the high level it is right now RE: builder experience and impact. Of course, there will be a transition period no matter what, and we will set up structures to support everyone. More info to come!

This is a big one! Up until now, how we’ve managed and operated the Community Rounds in its decentralized structure IMO would be a good foundation to follow and adapt for the future. Historically, these rounds have always been run by external trusted parties that align with our intents and meet certain eligibility criteria. Moving forward, how I see it is this:

Gitcoin will still own the high level strategy as well as ensuring that there is coherence with shared principles and agreements (this is really important to maintain the integrity of our program), but we will push more of the decision-making to the community and through governance on what to fund (this is where the sensemaking apparatus comes in). Much like we do with Community Rounds now, which includes an external council. What I envision as well, is that we will also allow the community to weigh in more when it comes to our flagship OSS Program, but Gitcoin will still be the round operators for those rounds.

I think there will be space to evolve this, but IMO we should start simple in GG24 at least.

Some overlapping themes in feedback (thanks LLMs):

Several clear overlaps emerge across the feedback:

Overlapping Themes:

  1. Concerns About Sustainability & Incentives

    • masterhw emphasizes minimizing burn rate and ensuring Gitcoin’s sustainability.
    • Tane worries experimental tooling may remain underfunded, advocating seed grants and performance-based incentives.
    • Owocki acknowledges concerns about incentive sustainability, openness to seed investment instead of grants.
  2. Revenue and Funding Models

    • Tane and kishoraditya share concerns about previous funding struggles and emphasize finding alternative revenue streams.
    • Owocki also recognizes the importance of exploring additional revenue streams inside and outside Gitcoin.
  3. Importance of Sensemaking and Relational Work

    • scttee.eth explicitly stresses investing in sensemaking and relationship-building beyond software tools.
    • KarlaGod also shows enthusiasm for sensemaking as key to the Funding Festival approach.
    • Owocki agrees strongly, highlighting the importance of building this sensemaking muscle explicitly.
  4. Clarifying the Role and Coherence of Round Operators

    • scttee.eth seeks clarity around decentralization, shared principles, and coherence across rounds.
    • MathildaDV directly addresses this concern, explaining Gitcoin will maintain high-level coherence while decentralizing decision-making.
    • kishoraditya similarly points to ensuring effective decentralized governance and operational clarity.
  5. Concerns Over Practical Value and Community Alignment

    • masterhw warns against focusing too narrowly on problems interesting only to Gitcoin insiders or crypto Twitter, advocating practical usefulness and alignment with community needs.
    • kishoraditya echoes this, emphasizing clearly defined metrics, execution effectiveness, and resource provision beyond mere funding.

Overall:

There’s significant alignment around concerns about sustainability, the clarity of decentralized coordination, the practical relevance of chosen problems, incentive structures, and strategic coherence through intentional sensemaking and community alignment.