This proposal looks to discuss and finalize how funding allocations for the Gitcoin Grants Round 12 Matching Pool are distributed and how to use categories (if at all). After previous successful Grants Rounds, this proposal aims to continue community-owned decision making.
Previously, the distribution of the Matching Pool to different Grants categories had been handled by the Gitcoin Core team (rounds 1-5), and later in consultation with the Funders League (rounds 6-9). Round 10 & 11’s distribution was based on GTC governance and we look to continue this with Grants Round 12 (GR12) to continue to reinforce the mission of decentralization.
This is also the first round where operations and execution of the round will happen by a DAO workstream - the Public Goods Funding workstream (with Gitcoin’s core team supporting).
During the discussion of Grants Round 11 (GR11), we saw feedback that some folks don’t like regional rounds, while others feel we should continue to have them, but instead have only a single region and focus on highlighting those grants. It was also noted that having a grant receive ~65% of the matching contribution amount for a category round was not good, and some folks were hoping to see an environment category get created.
Disclaimer: Much of this feedback was primarily based on individual community members’ sentiment, and there has not yet been deep analysis on the impact of making these changes.
Gitcoin has historically utilized categories, based on Grant types, to determine matching pool allocations based on a percentage of the overall matching pool fund during Grant Rounds. During the GR11 Finale Event this overall strategy was questioned by Vitalik Buterin, the argument being Quadratic Funding should be just as effective during Grant Rounds using no categories*.
In GR11, the $800k “main” matching pool was allocated as follows across 7 category pools:
- Infrastructure: 25%
- Dapp Tech: 25%
- Community: 20%
- NFT Tech: 10%
- dGov: 7.5%
- Africa: 7.5%
- Latin America: 5%
Gitcoin Holdings also worked with three other communities to introduce ecosystem rounds (“side rounds”) to GR11 which featured Uniswap Grants Program, OpenGSN (funding public goods retroactively), and Gitcoin building Gitcoin, which collectively brought another $150k matching to eligible grants. Finally, CommonStack donated another $15k to the Latin America category during the round bringing the total matching available to Grants Round 11 to $965k.
During GR12, the Public Goods Funding workstream wants to test Vitalik’s theory that Quadratic Funding should be as effective at allocating funds as allocation via categories. By doing away with specific grant categories and having all grants listed together, we hope to simplify and decentralize matching. This is a radical change in how we’ve historically set matching funds for grants’ matching pools, but a challenge we believe will help to better understand how to best implement Quadratic Funding.
Furthermore, Gitcoin Holdings will be publishing a deep-analysis comparing our historic category-driven grant round over the non-category GR12 results to see how these two approaches differ and if there are any inherent benefits/drawbacks.
*Assuming there is a cap on the amount a single Grant can receive in matching, relative to the matching pool total (see GR12 Main Pool section below)
There are two ways we might implement this: Option 1 being a single pool experiment, and Option 2 being having the Stewards & community propose an alternative.
Though tags will still function as per usual on the Gitcoin front-end when navigating and searching for grants on the website, there will no longer be specific categories for matching pool allocation.
The “main” matching pool would be distributed based on the following breakdown. These allocations are proposed by the Public Goods Funding workstream and are based on the observed results in GR11.
The GR12 main pool will be a single matching pool fund/distribution of $1,000,000 in matching for the round. No individual grant’s matching contribution amount shall exceed 2.5% of the overall matching pool fund (i.e., $25k).
In addition to the main pool, Gitcoin DAO will leverage the multisig as a pass-through for thematic rounds, funded by external sponsors for clear sets of global public goods. As part of our work with Other Internet, we received a wide range of submissions about new types of public goods we should consider funding beyond just web3. In GR12, we will be experimenting with rounds on climate change, tech advocacy, and longevity with net new funds.
Finally, the DAO will operate ecosystem rounds for groups like Forefront, Polygon, and Uniswap, as they have continued to do in the past. These funds will not interact with the multisig.
In summary, the goal of the single “main” matching pool experiment is to:
- Continue to follow the pace of our community’s contributions in determining matching pool allocation amount. (GR11 brought $1.5M in contributions from the community, we would advocate we should raise the matching pool to $1M from $800k to better follow the community’s lead).
- Gather real-world data to learn whether multiple sub-categories or a single category provides better fund allocation as it relates to Quadratic Funding to grant owners.
- Provide an in-depth post-analysis comparing these two approaches for future CLR/QF mechanisms.
Gitcoin Stewards and the wider community decide on a new matching breakdown and propose such. We encourage any Steward or community member to submit their own matching pool breakdown if there are concerns on the single pool experiment!
Please submit your proposal to the forum this week so that the community has sufficient time to vote before the round begins!
Once we have feedback on both this and other proposals, the Public Goods Funding workstream will gather all formal proposals and submit a Snapshot vote to decide which to move forward with.
Please do not submit a snapshot vote for your proposal specifically! This just adds confusion and makes it harder for the community’s voice to be heard effectively.