Hey @garm thanks for starting this conversation and all of your thoughtful responses.
This proposal meets quorum to actually go to a vote. I’m curious if you wanted to make any amendments to your proposal or if you wanted it to go to a vote as is. This proposal also doesn’t have to go to a vote if you don’t want it to.
Thanks @CoachJonathan! I’m working on a slightly amended proposal that we’d like to go to a vote this week - what is the best way to move forward with posting this?
Apologies for the delays in weighing in, but perhaps a few suggestions to get this to a vote.
A couple of key considerations:
Change the request to have USDC come from the Matching Pool instead of from Treasury. the Matching pool is a large sum that we rely on to fund public goods, which are only spent when Grants Rounds are run. This means, there is no tension to allocate these tokens for contributor work. Said differently, we wont need to reward contributors in GLO dollars if we use the matching pool.
Lower the amount to $100k USDC. This is still a sizable first test in growing the partnership, and should offer enough funding to outline the impact the swap will have. I am slightly surprised that 1% of the total stable coin market would only support 30k people. Perhaps that is 1% of the Gitcoin treasury, and not the total market that is reference in this post?
Consider creating a derivative that supports Public Goods instead of GiveDirectly (ie, align the value to our communities interest). We know our community cares deeply about public goods funding, and subsets of our community care about other do-good initiatives. If there was a stable coin where yield was made available for public goods funding, that would be more compelling (for me at least).
Set a time period for when this funding may be returned to USDC, or set social expectations for when / how we might unwind if needed. Not knowing how to unwind can lead to hurt feelings in the future and it would be great to be aligned on what the “rip cord” options might be for the community.
Really appreciate you posting this, and with those changes, I would vote yes on the proposal. Experimentation is still important in our ecosystem and I feel 100k from the matching pool is a small enough experiment to both matter for GLO, but also derisk large downside for Gitcoin.
Thanks for your feedback @kyle - I’ll be sharing a revised proposal later today and will incorporate suggestions 1, 2 and 4.
With regards to (3) we’re sticking with funding GiveDirectly at this moment in time as:
We want to run a lean operation that’s solely focused on building the best stablecoin,
Extreme poverty eradication through unconditional cash transfers uniquely combines extreme scalability, very low overhead funding and non-crypto-audience appeal - which is vital to make our interest-on-assets model work
GiveDirectly has 10+ years of experience running cash transfer programs in a highly transparent way
Unfortunately it looks like I can no longer edit my original post.
Given that the revisions are quite substantial, I was wondering if it might be clearest for voters to start a new topic and close this one? If that’s a no-go also happy to just post an addition to this thread, but I imagine that may become confusing to new readers
