In principle we’re agnostic to whether the swap is done from the treasury or matching pool.
That said, the matching pool does not hold a substantial amount of stablecoins at the moment. Incorporating a swap from Eth to Glo Dollar into the proposal will require Gitcoin voters to weigh a lot of additional strategic aspects. This would imo make the proposal a much bigger and more difficult ask.
The power of swapping from treasury is its simplicity. Take the existing stablecoin USDC that does not contribute to public goods and swap it for an equivalent stablecoin USDGLO that gives all its yield to public goods through the Gitcoin platform.
This way Gitcoin experiences no loss of spending power and does not lose out on Eth price increases. There is only upside.
Regarding a smaller swap: with $500k we can donate at least $20k across 2 rounds of $10k each. We redistribute 100% of our earnings, we do not keep anything for ourselves to run the round.
I do want to highlight that changing to $500k would be a second reduction from the $2.5M swap / $100k grant in the original proposal. Both quantities have the same monetary cost ($0) and operational swap work involved, whilst holding more has substantially larger benefits:
Increased Reciprocity: More Gitcoin builders will have funds to build with/for Gitcoin.
Greater Excitement: It’s likely to generate more buzz around funding rounds, attracting builders and driving Gitcoin’s growth.
Broader Awareness: It helps promote Glo Dollar, encouraging more users to support web3 public goods (including Gitcoin) through their USDGLO holdings.
By the way, we’ve been putting a lot of effort into making Glo Dollar as functional as USDC for everyday expenses—especially for things like paychecks and offramps.
@garm (and everyone) thank you for taking the time for thoughtful feedback! Appreciate the discourse when it comes down to PGF and our treasury.
With that being said, @garm can you update your proposal with the notes given in comments and voting options? Once that’s done myself or @cmurdock will get that up for voting as we have 5 steward comments.
I had (incorrectly) executed this to Snapshot prior - so for all those that had voted already, appreciate your participation!
Thank @deltajuliet - we have updated the proposal and voting options with the notes given in the comments. Looking forward to this proposal coming up for the vote!
Saddened and shocked to see this proposal fail. What is missing here?
I’m genuinely curious.
Some proposals pass some fail, that’s life. Learning the why is important to progress.
If I am missing the context that has been addressed somewhere would be grateful for someone to share that with me.
Was it just the amount?
Is there a play with USDC I’m not aware of for Gitcoin moving forward?
Is there an idea to diversify the stables across multiple experiments in things like RWA backed stable projects so need the flexibility and in order to make this USDGLO proposal work the balance would need to be maintained?
Thank you to everyone who weighed in on the proposal and took the time to vote. Unfortunately the proposal didn’t reach quorum and was rejected.
Some were for it (42.45%). Others against (57.54%). Different voters have given varying reasons for why, including:
Gitcoin should not actively manage its treasury.
Gitcoin should exclusively focus on building capital allocation tools for ecosystems.
There is not enough funding potential through Glo Dollar to make a meaningful impact. At least not at amounts that Gitcoin may currently be willing to hold.
I still believe that Glo Dollar has the potential to unlock significantly more sustainable funds for Gitcoin rounds. We’ll continue working on growing our presence. At some point it will start making sense to hold more Glo Dollar
I agree this is unfortunate. Web3 projects need to work together more to combat centralization risk. Holding USDC is not an advantage and is one of the largest risks to sustainability.
