In case it was not obvious from my previous comments, when you move this to snapshot please add the two options I mentioned above.
Don’t just make a snapshot saying: “Yes we all agree with what the gitcoin team says” or “No”.
And again please please please use the stewards and the community more in planning and feedback. This round, like the previous one feels a lot more like the gitcoin team telling us what we will do, rather than the DAO deciding.
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful dialogue. We plan to move this to a Snapshot vote on Monday.
Yes, @lefterisjp, I’ll definitely include the two options you mentioned above.
So, to summarize, there will be three options proposed to the community:
Option 1: Single Pool Experiment
Option 2: No Experiment - run GR12 with the same categories as GR11
Option 3: Do a 50/50. 50% of the matching pot as a single pool experiment, and 50% being category-based.
We’ll include some context on each one in the post.
Thanks a lot Annika. And thank you all for the thoughtful back and forth. Really appreciate the insight and different perspective.
@annika This discussion has come out with good possibilities on how this round should run.
I do have a suggestion as being one of the folks who’s building stuff out for grants round.
Going forward could we have proposal for changes such as this one done (voting included) much ahead of time.
The reason I say this is cause we set code complete + testing plan setup based on our what we believe helps us improve the product.
Changes from proposal like having 2.5% cap while def makes sense experimenting , having this pass just before the round starts, puts us in a tight spot as it makes it harder to meet our deadline.
Having this ironed out beforehand, would enable to grants team account for this during planning and ensure we have the right things built out
and besides the last minute dev challenges @thelostone-mc , there´s one meta perspective of this one pool experimentation proposal that should be consider too ( with 50/50 dynamics or not) : the potential increase of interaction/interface between grants or /and between collections ! and why I´m highlighting this ? because with categorization the projects tend to concentrate their " community action " within the borders of the category , which means very little widespread pollination effect occurs in terms of the micro funding that one can do regardless of the existing funding in the matchfunding round … that said, it would be nice to count with features where even team members of each project feels compelled to browse between all the grants proposals to micro-invest time or/and crypto … that could potentially culturally deconstruct the " popularity contest " dynamics because the goal becomes enhance the web3/DAO culture as a whole ! and hey, that´s my 02 cents for now folks =)
Reading through the discussion here, appreciate everyone’s perspectives. Agree with Lefteris that this discussion should take place earlier ideally.
I do agree that it seems like a bit of focus has been lost by the expansion into different categories. I’m supportive of their being a single large pool - though the 2.5% cap seems like a similar departure from “pure” Quadratic Funding, albeit a smaller impact.
I will be voting for the “Single Pool Experiment” instead of the “50/50” split because it will be a cleaner data set to analyze.