This proposal looks to discuss and finalize how funding allocations for the Gitcoin Grants Round 13 Matching Pool are distributed.
After previous successful Grants Rounds, this proposal aims to continue community-owned decision making regarding the structure of the main matching pool.
Prior to Grants Round 12, the pool was governed by categories that assigned specific percentages of the pool to grants in specific disciplines or geographies.
In Grants Round 12, the community voted to run an experiment proposed by the Public Goods Funding workstream 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 took a step towards simplifying and decentralizing matching. See GR12 Matching Pool Allocations brief for more context.
On the whole, the Public Goods Funding workstream believes the experiment was a success – directionally, at the very least. We believe the experiment was helpful in getting funding to more grants without complaints from top earners, and allowed us to test our assumptions about removing categories.
Barring a small implementation error in the cap logic that was fixed mid-round, the matching cap operated as intended and resulted in a small number of high-funded grantees being capped off at the 2.5% threshold.
All of this said, it is a subjective exercise to define what success of the matching cap looks like – success will depend on one’s philosophical stance on the QF mechanism and how much, if at all, caps should be involved to achieve more democratic outcomes for the long-tail of grantees.
With that out of the way, some information for you to interpret as you please:
In GR12, 10 of 758 grants (1.3% of grants) funded organically hit the matching cap of $25K
The total matching funds for these 10 grants represented 25% of the entire pool (10 grants x $25,000 = $250,000 on a $1M pool), and it would have been about 64% of the pool ($664,000) if we’d had no cap
So, as a result of the cap, $414K (= $664K - $250K) was redistributed to the remaining 748 grantees, with each grantee receiving about 1.7x their otherwise expected match as a result of this cap
*Note: These numbers are based on the preliminary round results as of Dec 16. They should be interpreted as directional, as they do not include removals after-the-fact by FDD.
And some qualitative data points:
The Public Goods Funding workstream did not receive complaints about the cap amount from grantees or funders
In the GR12 finale event, Vitalik suggested the matching cap was a successful experiment, noting that “in some ways, it might even be accelerating Gitcoin finding its product-market fit”
Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to do a concrete ‘what-if’ analysis directly comparing the GR12 results under a matching cap structure versus categories, because the underlying metadata isn’t there. Grants were no longer assigned a category as of GR12 – so without manually going in and assigning a category to each of the 1,000+ grants that came in after GR11, which we have not prioritized for obvious reasons, this analysis is not possible.
So, with all of the information above – and the full GR12 results at your fingertips – we would love to hear from community members as to whether you agree that the cap was a success, and if & how we should continue with it in GR13.
A statement from the PGF workstream:
We don’t know for sure yet if the main pool approach works best long-term, but we do know that there were major benefits for a longer tail of grantees and that it exceeded our expectations despite bugs, and we think it’s worth trying again before we drastically change course.
The Public Goods Funding workstream proposes that the structure of the round remains the same for GR13 at a high-level.
In summary, the structure of the round will have:
- A Main Pool
- Cause Rounds
- Ecosystem Rounds
Details on each:
The GR13 main pool will be a single matching pool fund/distribution of $1,200,000 in matching for the round. No individual grant’s matching contribution amount shall exceed X% of the overall matching pool fund (i.e., $XK) – as voted on by the community (see options below).
In addition to the main pool, Gitcoin DAO will continue to leverage the multisig as a pass-through for cause rounds (aka 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 experimented with rounds on climate, blockchain advocacy, and human longevity with net new funds. These cause rounds are a foray into Gitcoin moving beyond Digital Public Goods, and into Public Goods more broadly.
By all accounts, these cause round experiments were successful first tests. We raised $1.7M in matching funds across the three causes (more than the main round matching pool!), and have continued to see meaningful interest here – both from our usual Web3 partners as well as from some Web2 donors – moving into GR13.
Finally, the DAO will operate ecosystem rounds for groups like Uniswap and Polygon, as we have continued to do in the past. These are pass-through funds that are not drawn from the existing multisig balance.
The Public Goods Funding workstream has outlined three options on which we would like the community’s input before moving to a Snapshot vote:
Stick to exactly what we did in GR12.
No individual grant’s matching contribution amount shall exceed 2.5% of the overall matching pool fund (i.e., $30K of the $1.2M pool).
Stick to the GR12 structure, but with a new percentage.
No individual grant’s matching contribution amount shall exceed X% of the overall matching pool fund (i.e., $XK of the $1.2M pool).
We would like to see community members perform their own analysis & propose percentages we might try in the comments on this post.
Gitcoin Stewards and the wider community decide on a new matching breakdown and propose such. This could include going back to categories, or something entirely new. We encourage any Steward or community member to submit their own matching pool breakdown if there are ideas!
Please submit your proposal this week so that we have sufficient time to incorporate it into the vote!
Once we have feedback on both this and any 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.