Author: Kevin Owocki Status: Draft for discussion Target Round: GG25, Q2 2026 Proposed Matching Size: $100k–$300k (initial)
Summary
This proposal explores a strategic partnership between Gitcoin and Octant to pilot a yield-powered funding pool for GG25. The core idea is simple: deploy capital into Octant’s non-custodial, trustless vaults, use generated yield to fund Gitcoin Grants matching, and validate a sustainable, non-extractive funding primitive for public goods.
Octant has committed to matching Gitcoin’s vault deployment up to $2M, alongside co-branding and joint signaling. If successful, this model creates a repeatable path for funding frontier public goods without drawing down Gitcoin’s treasury.
Motivation
Public goods funding is evolving. Historically, Gitcoin Grants relied on surplus treasuries and episodic generosity. That era is closing. The next chapter requires structural funding that compounds over time and aligns incentives across capital, builders, and communities.
Octant represents a promising experiment in this direction. Its vaults are non-custodial, zero-fee, and designed to channel yield toward public goods. This proposal tests whether yield can reliably underwrite meaningful matching at Gitcoin scale.
Proposed Structure
Capital Deployment
Gitcoin deploys an initial tranche into Octant vaults, starting small and scaling as confidence increases.
Octant matches Gitcoin’s deployed capital up to $2M.
Capital remains owned by Gitcoin and Octant respectively. Only yield is used.
Matching Pool
Yield accumulated through Q2 2026 is harvested to create a $200k–$300k matching pool for GG25.
Based on current estimates, this implies $6M–$8M total capital deployed over time.
Round Focus
GG25 round focus proposed as d/acc and adjacent frontier domains where new funding mechanisms matter most.
Final scope to be co-defined by Gitcoin and Octant.
Brand and Signaling
GG25 co-branded as a Gitcoin x Octant round.
Octant receives top-tier sponsor recognition and explicit acknowledgment as a leader in next-gen public goods funding.
Future Considerations
If GG25 performs well, Gitcoin and Octant will revisit deeper GLM integration options within six months, without committing prematurely.
Risks and Mitigations
Smart contract risk: Octant is audited, but until its Lindyness grows, we cannot guarantee 100% capital deployment. Gitcoin will tranche capital gradually and only scale as confidence grows.
Yield volatility: Matching size is conservative and based on realized yield, not projections.
Operational complexity: This is a single-round pilot, not a long-term lock-in.
Success Criteria
Fund GG25 with no loss of principal.
Clear learnings on whether yield-based matching can scale.
Decision Requested
Approval to:
Remove funds from Avantgarde treasury management.
Proceed with a Gitcoin x Octant pilot for GG25.
Deploy initial Gitcoin treasury funds into Octant vaults with matched capital up to $2M.
Proposed tranches: $20k, $200k, $2m, $10m into Octant vaults.
Structure GG25 matching using generated yield, starting in the $100k–$300k range.
This is an experiment in making public goods funding structural rather than episodic. If it works, it opens a new chapter for Gitcoin and the broader PGF ecosystem.
I think the yield only funding model has been well proven in the 11 epochs octant has run from staking rewards. DeFi vaults even conservative leaning ones yield higher returns. This is how DeFi becomes ReFi. Best part is extremely low risk.
Honestly what’s not to love. Would be 100% in favor of matching Octants conviction with the idea to start with equal participation with Octant of 2mil for a total of 4mil earning yield.
This is an interesting proposal and a reasonable pilot structure.
Using Octant vaults to generate matching from yield rather than spending principal directly addresses Gitcoin’s long-term sustainability question. The staged deployment, conservative matching range, and single-round scope help manage risk while still producing useful signal.
I’m generally supportive of moving this forward as an experiment for GG25. The key value here will be the learnings around yield reliability, operational overhead, and whether this can scale beyond a pilot.
Strongly supportive of this! I guess we just need more detail on curation of the vaults beyond the non-extractive criteria.
Few questions that come to mind:
How many vaults are considered?
How will the vaults be prioritized (e.g decentralized stage, TVL, yield…) ?
Are the protocol teams behind the vault involved in other PG? At least a little background check to verify they are not just surfing the Octant V2 launch for their own marketing).
Thanks @owocki and everyone else who provided feedback…this looks great from the Octant side.
We’re really excited about piloting yield-powered matching with Gitcoin and seeing whether sustainable funding can reliably support GG and is exactly the kind of experiment we think the PGF space needs right now.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops, and always happy to answer any questions!
Thanks @owocki and @vpabundance I think this is a great partnership and excited to see where it goes.
As it stands, I’ll be voting no to this proposal, with some questions outlined below.
What is the cadence of the tranches? What is the reasoning behind splitting them up in this structure?
What is the actual yield that is being proposed? What are the strategies/risk profiles that Gitcoin is proposing to utilize? I basic have understanding of Octant Vaults - but I think further description would help the community. Maybe @vpabundance you could give the forum a brief overview? Including how we can delegate yield.
Is the full Avantegarde allocation (~$11M) being handed over to someone to manage in the meantime or being put back in the Matching Pool? Either way, outlining the tranches, dates, and flow of funds should be noted as these are two separate actions (removing funds from Avantegarde, amounts, moving into Octant + tranches)
How will the funds be allocated during the next round should yield not be sufficient? Can this be included in the standard allocation proposals we do ahead of rounds? Is the next Gitcoin round going to be structured similar to GG24?
I think this is a great initiative, and love working w/ the Octant team. Surfacing structural questions that maintain Gitcoin’s integrity w/ our funds and within the community not to slow down the process - but to ensure transparency. I’m sure you’ve thought of these @owocki, flagging for the community.
Thanks @owocki for this proposal. I’m excited to see this partnership with Octant! I have some questions and would love a few clarifications before I’ll be comfortable voting yes to the above proposal. It’s conceptually strong, but not decision-ready, IMHO.
As per @deltajuliet’s question above, is this proposal to remove Avantgarde as our MP asset managers? Where will those funds be moved to? I believe this should be a separate proposal or it should be outlined a lot more explicitly as there are two actions being proposed and Avantgarde’s management is currently a bit buried in the proposal as it stands.
I would love to see a more detailed data history of Octant yields, as well as audit details, and risk tolerance/profiles.
You mention a Gitcoin x Octant round – would that be a dedicated round within GG25 (as the structure of this round is still a WIP and will most likely be quite different from GG24?), or will Octant be a general MP "sponsor” for GG25, allocating the capital across all initiatives that fall within the round? Will that mean that Octant is going to be a partner in defining the scope of GG25 as a whole?
What is the initial tranche size proposed? You mention a scale, but it’s a bit unclear what this proposal is specifically pointing towards for GG25. I think this just comes from a lack of further details and outlines of how exactly it’s going to be deployed (for the sake of transparency).
Is there a timeline we should be aware of? By when should the funds be deployed to generate enough yield for GG25 (as we don’t have a set date here yet)? The timeline may affect timing of the round as well as the funds available so would be helpful to see this laid out more clearly.
Excited for this experiment! Once there is further clarification and details, I’ll be on board with voting yes.
The proposal does not assume a fixed yield. Matching size is based on realized yield only, not projections. At current market conditions, stablecoin strategies such as Sky USDS or Morpho USDC are roughly in the 4–7% annual range, but this can change. Yield simply accrues over time and whatever is actually generated is what funds matching.
Octant vaults do not generate yield themselves. They are built on Yearn v3 architecture, where the vault handles accounting and access control, and yield comes from external, established DeFi protocols such as Aave, Morpho, Sky/Spark, Lido, or Rocketpool. There is no leverage, and no custom financial engineering.
Each vault strategy is non-custodial, meaning Gitcoin retains ownership of principal at all times. Strategies are transparent and isolated by asset and protocol, so risk is not pooled across unrelated positions.
Gitcoin controls which asset is deployed (USDS, USDC, ETH as strategies go live), how much is deployed and when (including tranching), when yield is harvested, and when to exit. Principal is always withdrawable.
Only the generated yield is routed to matching. Principal is never spent. The vaults act as a coordination layer on top of existing DeFi protocols, turning standard yield sources into a sustainable matching pool without introducing new financial risk primitives.
On yield history: Octant itself does not create a new yield curve, so there isn’t a single “Octant yield” to point to. Vault performance tracks underlying DeFi protocols and strategies selected (e.g. Aave, Morpho, Sky/Spark, Lido, Rocketpool). Historical yield therefore maps directly to the historical performance of those protocols for the given asset. In practice, what Octant adds is a coordination and routing layer, not a new source of return.
On risk tolerance / profiles: Octant vaults are intentionally designed to be conservative by default. They are non-custodial, unleveraged, and use established protocols rather than bespoke yield engineering. Risk is primarily the underlying protocol risk of the selected strategy (e.g. lending market risk, validator risk for ETH staking), not Octant itself. This is also why the proposal emphasizes gradual deployment and tranching, capital can be increased only as comfort with the setup grows.
Let me know if I can expand on any of this further, and thanks for the questions!
Just curious if this means wont be using the giveth platform moving forward ?
Also is karmaHQ still a thing ?
Big fan of Octant - just trying to understand the full grants stack planned to be used for GG25 and ongoing and also understand as a previous grantee where should we be providing project updates and maintaining current information for projects seeking donations/funding
