@lefterisjp This is a very valid concern.
Wonât that really skew the result towards the most popular grants of all categories?
This is a problem thatâs difficult to solve for even without category-based matching pools. For example even when we did have category-based matching pools we would still see a ârich get richerâ funding pattern where Grants with large communities or popular Grants take a larger percentage of the Matching Pool.
That being said I do want to be clear and drive this specific point: From a UI/UX perspective nothing is changing. If for example youâre browsing through grants under the âcommunityâ category, grants still have the same probability of being funded as before.
The only difference here is instead of potentially having matching fund of ~$100K within the âCommunityâ category, a grant is now eligible for matching funds among the full $800K matching pool.
Also, to provide further context if we really breakdown ârunawayâ grants from previous rounds that take a large sum of the matching pool - weâre really only talking about <5 grants in GR11. And this was without the 2.5% cap. So in theory by introducing the 2.5% cap we should see more grants get funded.
In terms of individual grants having more or less exposure on the site - itâs all the same. An individual grants success really boils down to the ability to galvanize their communities, and broadcast that their grant exists.