[Proposal] Ratify the Results of GG18 and Formally Request the Community Multisig Holders to Payout Matching Allocations

[thedevanshmehta]

Thanks to @umarkhaneth and team for all the great work! Here’s some quick comments on the discussion going on

@annika

I always found it unintuitive that we have the community ratify results & approve payouts for something that it really makes more sense for core team members to validate. Those of us outside of the weeds just don’t have the context/process required to say “yes these results adhere to the intent laid out for the round” or “no they don’t”.

I am against automation of the payout process that @umarkhaneth , @M0nkeyFl0wer & @annika are in favor of.

it’s not just a mathematical formula but a social consensus on the best way to leverage the wisdom of the crowds. And the post analysis, pre-payout period is when some of the most active discussions take place. it would be tragic to let go of this tradition.

My main concern with this rounds distribution is just how closely it mirrors the ‘winner take all’ approach of the real world. Consider this chart i found showing the distribution in the open source round, the inequality is worse than any capitalistic nation.

I wonder if we could develop a gini coefficient or some such metric capturing inequality among projects as a 1st step to possibly reducing it in future rounds. Here’s some interesting research on progressive taxation in quadratic funding systems from DoraHacks thats worth exploring

https://research.dorahacks.io/2021/06/16/reduce-quadratic-funding-inequality-with-a-progressive-tax-system/

I also don’t know how much were following the gitcoin beta round squelching, but the difference that my project received from the 1st spreadsheet to the last was over 30%. These window periods are valuable for getting the community’s assistance in identifying sybil attackers, such as how mini meadows & some others got caught last round in this window period.

@sejalrekhan

I echo @priyank , Cluster-Match QF is defeating the purpose of empowering grassroot level organizations to raise funding from Gitcoin as the only support they can get is from their local community. How will that happen? How will we onboard local orgs solving for challenges on local level?

I will say that contrary to my expectations, the teams active on gitcoin radio have performed better under cluster QF. Maybe because we each gave to so many different projects that it increased the value of our vote. So while it won’t initially help local convergence, it is certainly helping digital coordination!

@priyank

Two-third of India survives in less than $2/day. Nawonmesh is a grassroots project operational in one of the most backward regions of rural India. You can imagine the financial capabilities of the immediate and extended communities Nawonmesh serves. Convincing these people to (a) resonate with a project having no immediate benefits to them and (b) DONATE $1, that too in CRYPTO, was itself very very difficult. Expecting them to give more to unrelated projects is completely unrealistic.

I agree with this point, I urge the team to consider making 10 cents the minimum vote for matching. $1 while living in the west is very different from $1 in the global south. Also, 20-35% of my project votes came from those giving less than a dollar, sometimes 10 cents and tragically even a few 95 cents

Finally, I request the team to not publicly list the payout address of projects as many operate in hostile environments where this information could be used against them