Outcome Based Funding for Web3 Popups: GG24 sensemaking report

Love to see the activity on this one…

Evaluated using my steward scorecard — reviewed and iterated manually for consistency, clarity, and alignment with GG24 criteria.

:white_check_mark: Submission Compliance

  • Structured and thorough proposal with problem, sensemaking, success metrics, domain structure
  • Team has direct experience with popups but lacks named reviewers or external anchors
  • No confirmed co-funders or popup organizer commitments listed
  • Mechanism is specific and promising (hypercerts + cost-benefit scoring)
  • Verdict: Compliant, but execution readiness and traction unclear

:bar_chart: Scorecard Evaluation

Total Score: 9 / 14

Criteria Score Notes
Problem Clarity 2 Clear articulation of opacity and coordination issues across popups
Evidence-Based Approach 1 Hypercert + cost-benefit model is strong, but reliability across popups is untested
Domain Expertise 1 Strong lived experience; needs external reviewers and evaluators for rigor
Co-Funding 1 Co-funding required, but not secured yet; no letters of intent shared
Capital Allocation Design 2 Excellent match of method to domain: eligibility, transparency, scoring, and reports
Execution Readiness 1 Sept-Jan plan is viable, but October outputs will be minimal unless organizers are pre-committed
Other (Vibe, Alignment, Blind Spots) 1 Strong ethos and alignment; metric gaming and data quality are key risks

:pushpin: Feedback for Improvement

Where I agree with Owocki:

  • Securing popup organizer participation is critical — get written pre-commitments.
  • Evaluation needs to be independent and audit-friendly — define challenge/appeal process.
  • Publish example hypercert schema and data completeness dashboard to build early trust.

What I’d add:

  • A dry-run hypercert scoring for 1–2 past popups would be invaluable for stress-testing impact metrics.
  • Clarify whether Gitcoin infra or a third party will host dashboards, dispute resolution, and fraud reviews.
  • Consider anonymized financials or tiered transparency if organizers are budget-shy.

:yellow_circle: Conditional Support

Would support this domain if:

  • 5+ popups pre-commit to the proposed schema (or a version of it)
  • At least one co-funder confirms in writing
  • Evaluation committee and scoring guardrails are made public
  • Gitcoin’s role is clearly bounded (infra + distribution, not sole arbiter)

This proposal moves the ecosystem toward impact accountability in a messy but important area. Let’s give it the scaffolding it needs to work.

2 Likes