[Proposal] Gitcoin Round 10 Matching Pool Allocations

📜 Proposals
22

Option 1 seems best for me, compare with option 3 I think it is great to have a pre-select by some simple rules.

3 Likes
23

As an asian steward, I would like to know:

if we (Gitcoin) retired Asian grant category, what’s the impact for the existed grant (already in Asian grant category)?

3 Likes
24

I think option 3 is good, but obviously option 2 is more fair

3 Likes
25

Just want to resurface this question, as it is something I’d also like some insight into before voting.

This is another good question, which goes along with @bobjiang’s point - in order to understand the options more deeply, not only would it be useful to know why Gitcoin Core decided on categories for previous rounds, but also to get some insight into how effective those categories have really been.

If effective, then Option 2 seems good. If not, then Option 1 (seeing as no steward has proposed anything concrete for Option 3, and it seems unlikely to me as most of us would be shooting in the dark there).

6 Likes
26

I suppose I prefer option 2, since I think it’s too late for option 3. I have a feeling option 1 would mis-allocate the money with too much going to popular / well marketed projects and too little going to projects that serve the overall ecosystem better.

I also think that some of the ‘groups’ need to be much better defined. What, for example, is the NFT group for? What exactly does that mean?

I would support option 2 more than I currently do if NFTs was removed and that amount added to infrastructure group which I think is always under-funded.

I also support @auryn proposal as well long term. A single round with all categories makes it too difficult for people to find deserving projects. A round designed to allocate funds to future, more focused, rounds (i.e. infrastructure only, regional only with more regions, etc.) , seems like a good idea.

6 Likes
27

Like plan 2. Plan 2 looks diversified, clear, and more specific. Also, it seems fairer

2 Likes
28

I support option 2 .because it will be more detailed and specific for future work. Clear division of labor and reasonable distribution

2 Likes
29

I prefer option 2, which is a more scientific and reasonable way

2 Likes
30

I support option 2, I think this option is fair.

2 Likes
31

I like all the options. they’re all good.

3 Likes
32

La 2 es la mejor , si hay dinero debe caer en gotas segun el compromiso y reputacion hacia la comunidad.

Sucedio en Dash hace algunos años que habia mucho dinero y gente con malas intenciones creaba eventos estupidos llevandose todo el pote , mientras mas distribuido con el compromiso de construir mejor.

2 Likes
33

I support option 2, I think this option is fair.

2 Likes
34

I like option 2, I think it’s fair.

3 Likes
35

I like option 3, it makes GTC more usful

2 Likes
36

vote option 2. Its a good idea

2 Likes
37

If the core team believe it is the best option; i vote for option 2.

2 Likes
38

I love the Option 2, distribution is clear and fair for projects, so i vote Option 2.

3 Likes
39

How about

  • Infrastructure: 30%
  • Dapp Tech: 25%
  • Community: 30%
  • Latin America 5%
  • NFTs: 5%
  • dGov: 5%
2 Likes
40

After reading the proposal I would go for option 2.

2 Likes
41

Option2 seems interesting but the Latin America category definitely has overlap with all other categories. How do we plan to address that?

3 Likes