Hey @blockchaindude108 Micro transaction are fine, for example I did contribute to 10 new grants because they did not received any funding yet and I think itâs a great way to motivate them in their projects or just a appreciable kick-off. If you decide to opt for a Grant Collection with multiple grant recipient, itâs more than fine to use a significantly lower amount because you are contributing to multiple grant.
The problem about micro transaction in this case is that there were a correlation between the time the âAirdropâ was made and the creation of a user account with some micro contribution transaction a few days after the âAirdropâ, and these user were commenting saying that they did not received anythingâŚ
It feels as if there may be some combination of two topics here. One is airdrops of GTC from the Gitcoin governance process. A second issue is airdrops from grant recipients as re-payment or consideration for grants during the rounds.
I fully support the above text, and I understand the desire to leave open the option for future GTC airdrops, but I am very deeply against grant recipients giving airdrops to those who donate to their grants at any point.
For this reason, I might separate out the two cases. GTC airdrops are one thing. Airdrops to those who donate to a grant by the grant recipient should cause immediate removal of the grant from the website (after review of course). The amount of damage airdrops by grant recipients does to the whole process is massive.
The text above doesnât make that clear and actually confuses (at least for me) whether or not itâs acceptable for grant recipients to give airdrops.
Accept my appologies if Iâm missing something or misunderstanding.
Hey @Sirlupinwatson thanks for your explaining. to be honest, i understand the concept of qf, but not the formula itself completely or the exact mechanism to distribute to each project. i saw Vitalik at the final and he said something about the amount of small donations and asked if it will be âenoughâ for the projects?(not exactly words, in these direction) because of that, i am not so sure if it was a good idea, to split it in so many small donations, in my case. i am not sure anymore, if my idea, to support as many projects as possible was a good idea? to take all on the menu. next round i will change my behaviour probably. whats the best way to have the maximum impact to the gc projects?
Hey @tjayrush to be honest, in my case, as a not native english person, sometimes i am missing the correct word. in these case the word airdrop (from gtc), maybe would be the word âgiveawayâ fit better?(in my case) anyhow. i think i catched you. i saw one project, and they said, they give an airdrop to their recipients and the donators from gc, but only if you donated more than $1. maybe these (or another amount) could be a solution for these projects? in my case, i was not expecting to get some airdrops from each specific project. for sure, nice to have, and a nice side effect is, feeling more connected to the project, in sense of community building a good step, imho. eg i see myself as some kind of supporter/investor on gc.
Could you explain in a few words how it damages, please? that i get an idea. i want support, not damage. maybe your explainings will help me in the future, to make better decisions. hopefully, try my best
You can feel comfortable, donât worry. When you make a donation, I think what is important is the idea behind or the intention of contributing, whatever the amount is. Of course, the more you can contribute the better is for the ecosystem.
Some people can contribute 1$, some people can contribute 100$, itâs more than fine!! And we thank you for your support!
What I mean by damage is this. The original purpose of the Quadratic Funding idea was that the amount of matching funds given to a grant are proportional to the number of donations they receive (as opposed to matching based on the total dollars of donations they received). This is because QF is attempting to gauge true community sentiment for a project as a way to guide matching donors in their decision on who to match and how much. This works if the measure of âtrue community sentimentâ is accurate. When some projects (that is some grant recipients) promise something in return for donations, any project that doesnât promise equally valuable returns will obviously suffer in the measurement of their popularity. This defeats the original intent of QF. For grants that have nothing to âairdropâ, they simply canât compete for attention, and what you end up with is not a matching system that rewards projects that of the most use to the community, but projects who pay their donors the highest reward.
Best to frame positively: Gitcoin DAO - Join to contribute, recognition by peers may include tokens.
Should not shame and reject someone outright, for having had certain thoughts, based on the common use of the term âairdropâ. Call it grants throughout, give the prospects the rules and let them decide whether to apply.
Following economic incentives, within the confines of specific rules, like maximizing ROI [maximum return for minimum investment], cannot be framed as a negative, when the very security of the blockchain relies on combined economic interests of the [notable] majority of numerous independent participants. If undesirable outcomes arise, adjust incentives and rules.
Generally, should remember that:
Possession of tokens does not equate to the membership in the DAO.
One time grants for prior participation in other venues are different from [future, possibly ongoing] rewards for contributions to the DAO.
Absolutely didnât agree with u sir,what is called âcontributionâ in your words? only code ? think about the people who can not write code,they just wanna donate to contribute web3.0, so what they only can do is donate their money, As for airdrop, depends on the project team, if they would airdrop,then thereâs a airdrop. if thereâs not, thereâs not! NO NEED PROPOSAL. but i agree with part of your word, the man donate just for airdrop,wanna be a Speculator. Definately we wonât welcome hr or she.whether he is a chino, americano,cubano,mexico,wherever he come from.
I support this proposal! Quell the greed. Maybe airdrops should be stopped. So many just dump the tokens immediately anywaysâŚ
Wow I canât believe people have gotten combative. That is crazy! This kinda stuff is exactly why people involved with the grant reviews and prohibitions should use pseudonyms or protect themselves otherwise.
Just to say âhere to receive airdrop otherwise will not joinâ is the first step of the funnel, as long as it is clear " Airdrops may come, but you are not entitled to an Airdrop." as owocki suggests, rush in to receive airdrop itself is still overall positive⌠these are curious people at least, they have the ability to adopt new things. It is not feasible nor desired AFAIC to ban airdrop.
If people feel they donât belong to the culture, they will leave. I feel culture is more important than slogon to deter gitcoin-target-user-tobe
The term airdrop in crypto by now has the implication of getting âsomething for nothingâ. Some tokens are sent unannounced to existing accounts, or you click through some form just in time, or having participated with the issuerâs systems in the past, you can claim some.
But no further actions or contributions are expected, hence the broad attraction, luring hoards of crypto noobs, hunting for any drops. Itâs a reasonable behavior in their situation and does not make them bad. They are simply not a part of the core OSS âcommunityâ, and unlikely to become such.
Is there any way to shed all use of the term âairdropâ and stick to âgrantâ, which is broadly understood and not so encumbered?
disregarding an airdrop or grant however you want to call it is not an option. Maybe find a way to reward people how are contributing not only âin for the techâ (airdrop hunting)
i totally agree with you⌠it does bring the value of other projects down . making people more skeptical.