I’ll start by acknowledging my obvious bias in this vote. Given that bias, I’ll abstain from casting a vote. Anyone that wants to vote on this and has delegated to me should delegate to someone else for this proposal.
My understanding of this proposal is that it is less about specific future deliverables and more an acknowledgement of past work pushing the Quadratic Funding and Ethereum Public goods space forward. So I’d be inclined to view it in the same spirit of the Retroactive Public Goods funding post that Optimism recently published. In other words, this would be the Gitcoin DAO explicitly saying “we value the contributions you have made to the QF space and want to align our future efforts towards funding Ethereum’s public goods”.
That said, I do think there are specific deliverables that we are already planned and would be beneficial to the Gitcoin DAO, that could be much more easily achieved given this extra funding.
Specifically, we are:
Building a production ready decentralized QF protocol, with baked in Sybil and collusion resistance, that can scale to billions of users.
Making it easy for anyone to deploy their own instance of the clrfund to fund whatever public goods they want, including both the contracts and the app.
Building in a modular and extensible way so that instances of clrfund can choose the governance, Sybil resistance, and recipient registry solutions that best suit their community and use-case.
This funding would allow some of our contributors to focus on this full-time, along with bringing new talent in (likely from the Gitcoin community via bounties).
One important thing for the Gitcoin DAO to consider is if/how this fits with the decentralize grants workstream.
Clr.Fund , desde sus inicios a estado ayudando a proyectos con muy poco volumen 500 usd 100 usd sucede que en algunos paises es mas importante comer que tener financiamiento.
Sin duda apoyaria esta alternativa demostrando que realiza un trabajo etico para la comunidad , si la comunidad se guia por lo que ve y no le gusta la financiacion bajen los fondos a 35K pero sin duda son grupos que no hay que dejarlos solos por un click de distancia.
(2) is answered in the OP and by Auryn in his reply.
For (1) I think it’s a good question. Auryn went into a bit more detail in his response but perhaps a more official breakdown of costs and a timeline could help alleviate some of the people’s concerns here as the amount is indeed rather big.
In more concrete terms, at the current GTC value, this would give us the capacity to hire ~2 full-time developers and a full-time product manager for the next year, which would radically increase the rate that we can ship the features mentioned above. The other place that some small portion of the funding may be used is to cover infrastructure costs for running the coordinator, since computing the ZKPs can be pretty demanding.
There is some variability to how far this funding will get us, since we would obviously not intend to cash it out immediately. Ideal case, we could find folks who want to be paid in GTC so there is no need to convert it at all. Otherwise, we would need to convert some portion of periodically (say monthly or quarterly) to cover dev costs.
Are people satisfied with the answers provided by Auryn and the CLR.fund team? Is there any more things that need to be discussed before we move onto a snapshot vote?
thank you for detailing this + the even more specific answer re hiring. It would be fantastic if we could identify people wanting to work on GTC payout bounties to further CLR.Fund mission.
I’d also really love to maybe see a collective report on QF co-authored by Gitcoin and CLR Fund that essentially details the huge progress made in the space since QF became a “thing”. This could also really further people’s understanding of the concept AND the uptake in setting up/funding grants for future rounds in both projects…
Yeah, I think this would be a really valuable piece of content. Although, at least from clr.fund’s side, we’d probably want to wait until after we’ve run at least one production scale round before authoring a report like this.
Retroactive funding for the win. I would absolutely support this proposal.
CLR.fund has made huge contributions to the QF space and supporting basically the only “competitor” is exactly the right vibe.
We are all allies in the public goods space.
I will vote for this without any reservations.
That said, I think it would be in the best interest of GTC to see some vesting requirements in basically all of these large grants… I don’t think they have to be even on chain… just a friendly understanding that the holdings would only be liquidated at a certain rate… And definitely would not be “diversified” upon receipt.
Honestly, with this team I don’t even think it would need to be said, they are crypto savvy, understand token economics, and have a culture of making win-win deals… I assume they will hodl the GTC unless they need it. That said… it would prob be cool to be explicit about that in all big grants that don’t have any milestones.
Yeah, I have no qualms with this at all. Perhaps some vesting schedule with a clawback option for the Gitcoin DAO would be a good way to put people’s mind at ease. Above I mentioned that, at the current value, this could cover one year of costs for two devs and a PM, plus some misc. expenses. So perhaps vesting it continuously over the course of a year, or in four discrete tranches, would make sense.
As much as I’m confident that we could be trusted to do it on a handshake, we have a variety of great tools available to us to eliminate the need for trust, so we may as well make use of them.
Hi. I am overall supportive of the effort clr.fund is doing but I do wonder why we need a separate proposal to acknowledge the past effort. The normal Gitcoin round should fulfil that purpose.
If we pass a proposal without set goals, targets, and deliverables, it may be very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the value delivered. I do suggest changing the format to the “Budget proposal” type.
I love this idea, specifically the thought that collaboration and the sharing of ideas can flow between teams. CLR.fund is further ahead in MACI and thinking through nested matching pools while Gitcoin is further ahead in scale.
Could we set the expectation that each team connect every two weeks to share current work and brainstorm on learnings and roadmaps a bit? The DOT and KSM analogy sounds wonderful given how tightly those groups collaborate.
@auryn - Would you be open to a sync every two weeks (or whoever is doing the building) to ensure both teams can learn from experiences of the others? When Gitcoin launches the dGrants protocol, the learning will be invaluable from the CLR.fund side to make sure we are offering complimentary experiences.
I’m more than happy to sync up regularly to share learning. Bi-weekly might be a little frequent, given the pace we’re moving at currently. But that could change quickly if/when this grant is approved.
Hey folks - just giving my 2 gwei that I’ll be supporting this proposal.
Over the past ~6 months I’ve been leading a team part-time that is building on the work of the clr.fund with the end goal of running a funding round for Eth2 public goods. You can find our work on GitHub at ethereum/clrfund, which we plan to merge back into the clr.fund monorepo to benefit all future clr.fund instances. We’ve been working closely with @auryn & the clr.fund team throughout. I’ve been impressed with the quality of their team members & their passion for their mission. I’m confident they’ll make great use of these funds to continue to push this space forward.
I want to voice some concerns about the proposal. I like CLR and would like to see them funded. However $40K is a lot of money to be giving away without any type of concrete budget for past/future expenses and deliverables. I would like to set a standard for the content of proposals so as stewards, we can be better informed in making decisions about who and what to fund. I don’t think this proposal meets that standard and so I wil be voting no. If the proposers can put together a more detailed breakdown of why the request is for $40K in particular, I would be happy to support.
Hey everyone, this is a little off topic, but relevant to three thread.
Clrfund.fund is currently running a trusted setup ceremony for the latest MACI circuits. These could be reused by any project wanting to use those same circuits.
If you have a few spare CPU cycles, please consider contributing some entropy.
