Proposal: Issue CLR.Fund a 40k GTC Grant

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 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.

1 Like

I love this idea, specifically the thought that collaboration and the sharing of ideas can flow between teams. 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 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.

Sounds good - I would love to learn more about the nesting matching pools ideas for example :slight_smile:

1 Like

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 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 monorepo to benefit all future instances. We’ve been working closely with @auryn & the 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. 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.

(there is a manual option in the hamburger menu in the top left if you don’t want to give the GitHub app permissions to write to your gists)

What level of detail are you looking for?

I added some extra details in the comments here and [here] (Proposal: Issue CLR.Fund a 40k GTC Grant - #10 by auryn).

Hi Auryn. Firstly, I want to reiterate that my expectations here are for ALL proposals to gitcoin, not just yours. It’s about setting standards for the future.

The information you have provided in a few different comments is helpful, however, I don’t think anyone should have to go digging through the comments to get the details of what money is going to be spent on. I would like to see this information up front in the original proposal.

I would also expect it to be presented in a way that makes a clear link from the funding to the inputs to the outcomes. So your goal is to produce XYZ product, that will take XY hours of time from XYZ type of staff @ $XY rate + $$ other costs, therefor out financial needs are $$$. As opposed to, $40K sounds good, here’s roughly what we can do with it.


Heads up everyone, the Tally proposal to ratify the Snapshot proposal that passed a few weeks back will be live very soon.

If you need to move tokens or update your delegations before the vote, now is your chance.

1 Like