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

What next? Are we proceeding with payouts or ratification of the results?


I’m flagging this :black_flag:because few things are not proper in a certain manner :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

The word “SYBIL” is enough to bring create a panic sensation in market :grin:

1 Like

“ For example, EtherScore, which is ranked first in the table, had an original voter count of 2,941, but the final number of eligible voters was only 643. In other words, nearly 80% of the voters for this project were determined to be voting troops. ”

I don’t think :thought_balloon: they understand how this works because the 643 voters were the ones with matching funds. There were not any voters who were removed. They simply didn’t have their Gitcoin passport score higher than 20 points for the matching funds.

So the article is misleading.

1 Like

The vote :ballot_box: will conclude in a few days which is already overwhelmingly for the approval of funds being distributed. That will take place afterwards.


Thank you for your response and clarification. I understand your concern, but I believe there may be some misunderstanding. The diagram provided explains the difference between Base Voters and Eligible Voters.

As mentioned, voters must have a Gitcoin passport score higher than 20 and donation over $1 to become Base Voters. These Base Voters then undergo additional screening to ensure they are not sybils, bots, or duplicate accounts before becoming Eligible Voters. The final results are determined through simpleQF and cluster-matching QF separately.


You are correct :white_check_mark:… I am wrong :expressionless:

I see the difference here on the original contributions which makes more sense. It’s just not included in the article and that’s why I felt it was misleading.

1 Like

Thanks Jon for the response & explanation. We’ll try to do better next round.


Hello everyone.

Thanks to @umarkhaneth and the team for your efforts.

On behalf of our team at DeFi Africa, I would like to know when the payouts will be carried out?

We had a planned to host a workshop in this October, which has already been announced and registration is full. We’re just left with some few days away to the workshop and funds are yet to be released.

I would like to know when it’s planned to release so we can reschedule our event.


Hey @realsahabia thanks for your message and you have my apologies for this taking so long that you’re considering rescheduling your event. Payouts should go out early this upcoming week. Could you dm me on telegram and we can figure out how to support your event in the meantime? I’m umarkhaneth on there as well.


Thanks to all Gitcoin Team for the hardwrok. :herb:

There are five projects in the climate round that received more than $15,000 - why has the matching cap not been enforced in these instances?

The matching cap is different by round. Climate has a 10% cap on the $250,000 in the main climate pool for a $25k cap

1 Like

Hey @umarkhaneth thanks for your response. Please find my message on your telegram inbox.

1 Like

All core rounds have now been paid out!! :tada::tada::tada: (with the exception of shell’s 100k side pool for climate)

If you have any questions please reach out on telegram: umarkhaneth


I was told somewhere that the gitcoin rule of no VC funding was revoked. I am not sure if that is true, but I think it is a mistake if so.

My view as a small project is that I feel much of Gitcoin is a popularity contest that benefits established projects way more than early ones? For me at-least, I would need to rank in the top 50, probably the top 30 minimum to survive if I did not have community funding from my primary tribe.

While I cannot confirm it, I also feel like some of the projects in the top ranks may not fully qualify, or may be violating the VC funding, aka double-dipping.

I checked some and one that stands out is DefiLab.xyz whos domain points to a for sale page…

Another that is a name that stands out is 4EVERLAND who IIRC has made VC biz dev deals and operates as a .Inc (meaning they have big fish investors more cases then not).

Some of these names I recognize as legit projects providing a valuable service like revoke.cash.

I feel a lot more vetting is needed on funding so that projects that actually need the money get it. I am fortunate to have a community funding source outside of Gitcoin, but if I did not, frankly the work I’m doing for the space would never exist and I would be working as a consultant again. But I do hope as my project grows, I can rely on Gitcoin more than getting a few hundred USD a quarter.

Unrelated to who gets what, some general product feedback is that the on/off ramps need solving. All the L2 stuff just fragments things and makes it more painful than cGrants ever was such only the most dedicated supporter will go though the BS needed to donate.

The batch donating is a good thing but we need to have a unified means of donating across grant pools, a unified profile for all grants on gitcoin.co, and a frictionless way to go from USD to X crypto to donate, KYC or not.

Overall I echo a lot of the criticism @lefterisjp left on Twitter. Im also glad to see someone helped his project outside Gitcoin :slight_smile:



Can confirm the site goes here.

The actual site is here. It doesn’t look like it’s been updated since 2021…

Twitter is unfortunately not as active as one :point_up: might hope.

I only see one post about Gitcoin from the Alpha round so this is definitely a bit suspicious.

The one :point_up: thing that does raise a bit of a red flag :triangular_flag_on_post: is the number of donations. I can’t tell if these are legitimate donations or not based on their campaign activity on social media.

It’s also very hard to imagine 2370 individual donations being made when we all spent two weeks straight in Gitcoin radio :radio: fighting to get over 100 donations. Maybe we are missing something here but something definitely doesn’t add up.

1 Like

The results overall look great, I’m personally very happy to see some of my favorite regen projects make it to the top in the Climate round!


Well done Guys , Looking forward to help the community in upcoming rounds as well .



From what i read, as far as gitcoin concerned the top 2 projects that joined this climate round, are uniform, established monoliths. Since they have been slashed enormous percentages, that means the decision of their uniformness and monolithness is made.

and also, from the recent round operator lesson, i learned that

Seems like we are also doing suspicious activity.

Projects like us are not accepted to the round by just clicking the “submit” button. There was an election process. Our projects were reviewed by Gitcoin. But now, we are called suspicious monoliths by the same Gitcoin.

Either the language is wrong, or there is a much bigger problem here. Because what gitcoin gave me as an explanation to the %74 percent cut, was that we were either suspicious, or a uniform monolith.

Or our donators donated only to us and no one else.

What is wrong with they voted only for us? That means our community has moved, they used gitcoin and donated $1 to us, we should not get a cut for that imo. We can not go check who voted for how many projects and find the ones that voted only for us then warn them about “no you can not just vote for us, you have to vote random amounts of $$ to random number of projects or it is fraudulent”

We should do that before the round. This video is made by greenpill.network, i translated it to Turkish and shared from BanklessDAO Turkish YT. The video explains QF but there is no explanation of Cluster Matching, it just says “which ever project gets more number of people donating to them regardless of the amount of asset they donated, that project will get more from the matching pool”.

That means we should update all our QF content ASAP until GG19, because it is missing the most important part of Gitcoin rounds. Since it caused us, %74 percent, there is nothing more important then knowing how CM works. There is no importance of what QF is for Nawonmesh, because %86 of their funds would have come from Cluster Matching.

We were the slashed side of the CM, how about the gainers?

If you mean you can get %80 percent of the pool by shear numbers, you can’t, because there is a cap. I assume you already know about the cap thus by saying lions share you meant the cap.

Then how come Atlantis is eligible for the lions share of $23,876 with average number of backers?

Cluster Matching just got dismissed of QF in my experience.