[Proposal] Redistribute GTC to Individuals Who Could Not Claim Due to Error

I. Overview
The GTC airdrop earlier this year was a great step towards the decentralization of the Gitcoin ecosystem. Unfortunately, there are several users who were eligible for the drop because they funded the project Force DAO before the date of the airdrop, however, an error in the transaction validator ingesting their transactions meant that these users were unable to claim their tokens. Specifically, when these users went to claim their tokens within the 30-day airdrop window, they were not allocated a percent of GTC tokens for their donations to Force DAO. This proposal is looking to retroactively compensate the users who were not able to claim their GTC due to the error.

II. Proposal Details
Since understanding this error involves many fine details and retroactive date tracing, we will look at one user’s experience (@haj199) in order to show how everything unfolded:

  • February 14th 2021: @haj199 donated a grant (Figure 1) to the project Delta Prize.

  • ~ March 4th 2021: The project’s name changes on the Gitcoin website from “Delta Prize” to “Force DAO”.

  • ~March 10th 2021: The Gitcoin bot drops (Figure 1) haj199’s original transaction to Delta Prize / Force DAO from his Gitcoin account. We examined the Gitcoin code base and did not find a clear reason for this.

  • May 1st 2021: Cutoff date for transactions factoring into the GTC airdrop. Unfortunately for @haj199, his transaction no longer meets the cut off date because the Gitcoin Bot had already dropped it.

  • May 25th 2021: The 1-month window for the airdrop opens.

  • ~June 7th 2021: @haj199 attempts to claim GTC tokens, but is not able to claim the allocated percent of GTC tokens from his donation to Delta Prize / Force DAO. @haj199 lets Gitcoin know by filling out this form. Gitcoin recognizes that his original transaction before the cut-off date was valid and reposts it (Figure 1) on @haj199’s account. Due to the posting of the transaction occurring after the cut-off date (but not that transaction itself), @haj199 is still unable to claim his GTC reward.

This proposal is asking for a rolling period of 4 weeks for “affected individuals” like @haj199 to resolve inconsistencies with activity shown on their Gitcoin profiles by providing “valid proof” to their eligibility claim. During this 4-week period, users would receive GTC from the DAO treasury upon proving their eligibility.

III. Qualifications and Criteria
Qualifications for “Affected Individuals”:

  • Donated to Delta Prize / Force DAO before April 1st 2021 - the cutoff date for the original airdrop.
  • Was not compensated by GTC for those donations.
  • Attempted to claim GTC within the 1-month airdrop window starting on May 25th 2021.

Criteria for “Valid Proof”:

  • Etherscan receipt for transactions before the airdrop cutoff date showing:
    a. Transaction hash
    b. Interaction with the Gitcoin: Bulk Checkout smart contract
    c. Amount sent
    d. To address (0xe5b5514e0618f4b55736c0c0c78ccd6f8ac14631)
    e. From address
  • Proof of Wallet ID matching Gitcoin Account
    a. Our workstream will ask the Gitcoin Core team to look into their database to verify that the wallet ID that made the original donation matches back to the Gitcoin user claiming they are an affected user.
    b. We are assuming that having a transaction re-added during the 1-month airdrop period is proof that the individual attempted to claim GTC within the window. This is because individuals who re-added their transactions were ones who reached out to Gitcoin via the form, thereby interacting with the Gitcoin website at the time.

IV. Distribution
After proving that an individual is an “affected user” and has shown “valid proof” for their GTC claim, we will use the same formula used to calculate their new GTC allocation as was used in the original airdrop:

Formula: GMV per user / GMV Total (in USD, $22,000,000) * GMV Allocation Percent (10,080,000) (see Figure 2 and 3)

After calculating the GTC allocations, the process of distributing the actual GTC tokens from the Gitcoin DAO treasury to the “affected users” is a straightforward one, and would be done using Whaler DAO’s AstroDrop application. To learn more about Whaler DAO and their reliability, feel free to check out their grants page.

V. Motivation and Benefits
By implementing the proposed solution, we uphold the integrity of the Gitcoin ecosystem, ensure equity for all members, and set a positive precedent moving forward. Gitcoin prides itself in empowering participants and emphasizing collaborative behavior. As shown above, it is evident that certain members have not received GTC during the airdrop period despite meeting all requirements and attempting to claim GTC, while other users received their allocation successfully. This proposal aims to retroactively support those members by giving them the GTC they were eligible to originally receive. This allows Gitcoin to stay true to its founding principles while also ensuring all participants are being valued. Finally, this will also set a positive precedent moving forward as it shows that the Gitcoin community through its governance is willing to accommodate and adapt when needed, prioritizing equality and fairness.

VI. Drawbacks
A potential drawback that might prevent people from voting “yes” on this proposal is that it is asking for GTC tokens to be withdrawn from the DAO Treasury, thereby increasing the circulation of GTC in governance. However, as explained above, these tokens should have been distributed to the users from the treasury earlier during the original airdrop as they were eligible. Another drawback in this proposal is that it does not address what the original bug was that caused the original transactions to be dropped by the Gitcoin bot. However, as proven above, it is clear that regardless of what the error was, it’s explanation is not necessarily needed for remedying the solution, as proof of eligibility can be determined without it. It would be useful to eventually find the root cause and identify the bug to prevent future occurrence of this problem, but it is not needed for this proposal.

VII. Voting
Yes: Open up a 4 week-rolling period for “affected users” to resolve inconsistencies with their GTC claims mentioned above. If an affected user is able to prove that they were in fact eligible for a GTC allocation from their donation to Force Dao (using the proof criteria above) and did not receive it, then send them their GTC from the DAO treasury. Voting yes only covers the above use case. It does not cover cases for users who forgot to claim their GTC within the original 1-month airdrop.

No: No 4-week rolling period of GTC drops for affected users who should have received an allocation but did not due to the error in the transaction validator.

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

VIII. Figures
Figure 1 (taken October 8th, 2021):

Figure 2 (taken October 8th, 2021):

Figure 3 (taken October 8th, 2021):

1 Like

Thanks for creating this post. In my case, here is an etherscan receipt showing proof that I donated before the cut off date, as well a screenshot verifying that the wallet id traces back to my gitcoin account.

1 Like

Yes, my situation is quite similar. I had a back and forth communication with both Conner and Kyle which helped me understand the situation a bit better. Thanks for such a detailed summary of the issue.

1 Like

I would vote yes for this on its surface. A few questions:

  1. Is there any chance of getting an estimate of how many people are affected? It mentions only Force DAO, but does anyone know if this happened with other donations?
  2. Is there an estimate of how many “affected users” who can provide a “valid proof” there are? If there’s 10, that’s one thing. If there’s 100,000 that’s quite a different thing.
  3. Is there an estimate of how many potential tokens we’re talking about and (importantly) what percentage of the total treasury this might represent? Again – 1/10 of one percent is one thing - 10% is another.
  4. Is there a plan for making it clear that this is a one-time only correction? One concern is that by doing this you’re establishing a precedent and other (equally justified examples) will come with further claims. Solving this problem once and for all would seem better than opening up a continuing stream of similar claims.
  5. Related to 4, is there a plan to broadly announce that this policy is being enacted? If not, then how are you to know that all potential claimants (with similar but different claims) have come forward?

Hey - thanks for the input!

I would like to preface this by saying that I am not part of the Gitcoin team, so much of the information obtained had to be acquired by scurrying the website, the forums, discord, etc. As outbound workers on this project, we do not have access to the internal database and had to rely on the Gitcoin core team helping us on a few occasions by providing us with information from their database. That being said, even as outbound workers, we were able to acquire enough proof to show that some individuals would have been eligible for the airdrop, but never received their allocation specific to FORCE DAO.

To answer your first 3 questions, we went through the FORCE DAO donation list and were able to identify the list below as all users who had their transactions dropped at the same time by the same error. This is not a big list, as it is specific to the project mentioned above. However, not all the users listed had their transaction re-added during the airdrop window, therefore, using our outbound method of proving attempt to claim GTC, not the entire list might have proof to show that they attempted to claim the GTC during the 1-month window. Therefore, since some individuals from this list can’t even prove attempt to claim during the 1-month window, they would not be eligible for the compensation as they missed the airdrop window entirely. This proposal does not address users who missed the airdrop window entirely. Regardless of who on this list ends up being compensated based on the proof supplied during the rolling window, if you look at the list size and the total amounts donated, we will only need a very tiny portion of the treasury to compensate the individuals affected.

  1. @sitnyaga 7.00 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  2. @drmtaha 0.200 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  3. @jindevilfruits 3.000 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  4. @kumotaro 2700 USDC 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  5. @haj199 50000 USDT 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  6. @andmilj 0.70 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  7. @dekutree1314 0.50 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  8. @angelom777 1.50 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  9. @fdanso 0.60 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  10. @zombiehobbes 1.0 ETH 6 months, 3 weeks ago
  11. @fruktozamin 26000 DAI 6 months, 3 weeks ago

To answer your 4th question, I agree and think solving this problem once and for all for all cases of individuals affected, even across other projects, is a smart decision. However, I also think making an all-encompassing proposal will be harder to get a vote to pass on right now, as a decision that big might appear risky to many voters as it will involve more GTC being distributed. I think that starting small by taking on this project first, seeing how it goes, and then using it as a guide to structure a future all-encompassing proposal would be a wiser decision. Especially considering that the informal workstream we have for this proposal right now consists of mostly outbound workers. For a more encompassing proposal, I think we would need more members from the Gitcoin core team on the workstream, and right now based on my understanding, most of the team is busy with others matters. If an all encompassing proposal ends up happening in the future, I would also be happy to help lead that as I think solving this problem and helping the affected users is a worthy cause.

To answer your final question, I think the way to announce this policy would be to directly reach out to the users affected. Since we have narrowed in on a very specific problem within a specific project, we were able to identify the exact people who are affected. I also think making the window for this policy enactment be rolling for 4 weeks, will also give people more than enough time to come forward. Furthermore, we can also announce this policy on the relevant Discord channels pertaining to GTC to let people know about it.