Regenerating $GTC

[peth]

Despite Gitcoin being one of the most successful non-speculative products on Ethereum, GTC is down 96.8%.

People who immediately dumped GTC upon airdrop got more $ out of it, than true believers like the cofounder Scott Moore, who is now down 96.8%.

This simply isn‘t right.

State of things

Unfortunately, as we‘ve seen time & time again, price action is the best predictor, marketer & driver of project success, for better or worse.

Numba go up > people happy > people talk about the project > project usage grows > project attracts contributors > numba go up > repeat.

Opposite is true as well. Numba go down > people unhappy > people leaving > less work > smaller treasury > lower compensation > less work done > numba go down

At the time, Gitcoin is simply not investable.
This has resulted in talent bleed

Wat do?

I know all of us regens liked believing token price is irrelevant, but thats 100% incorrect.

Minimum viable:

• Temporarily stop funding all non-critical proposals for GTC
• Proceed to implementing a 10% buybacks with all revenue/inbound $

Additional considerations:

• Propose all sub-projects like Allo & whatever other project was funded by GTC, to perpetually kick back 10%(?) of its own revenue back here, immediately converted to GTC
• Make it a default requirement that each project funded by GTC perpetually does either that, or sends 10%(?) of its own token supply to Gitcoin

GTC Maximalism:

• Make it so that 100% of matching funds are used to buy GTC, and projects are dropped GTC instead of $ or ETH. This would create a dynamic where GTC keeps going up because not all projects convert all of their GTC to $, and instead choose to become stakeholders of Gitcoin.

I‘d personally want to implement all of these changes, but obviously not everyone is as extreme

Thoughts? Other ideas for regenerating GTC? Think it shouldnt be done at all?

[owocki]

Hi peth,

thanks for the post! we are both aligned in wanting to see gitcoin be successful.

how to do that is a good question.

lets start with whats going well: gitcoins product adoption is up ($7m in GMV in 2023 to $10m in 2024), and revenue is up (now close to $1m in 2024). we are doing innovative funding experiments again (like the deepfunding pilot we just announced with vitalik.

honestly the sky is the limit for gitcoin imo. we’ve been in every major funding mechanism the last 2 cycles. just launched another funding mechanism with vitalik and have other cool stuff in the works. we could build into the capital allocation layer of the tokenized internet. And continue progressively decentralizing along the way. is this a promise? no. is it a possibility? yes, and it becomes more probable if people show up and make it happen.

but that doesnt seem like its been enough. what to do is the question? so i am glad you are laying out some options. ( and thank you for bringing the convo on the gov forum, most ppl just complain on social media )

before we get to that.

People who immediately dumped GTC upon airdrop got more $ out of it, than true believers like the cofounder Scott Moore, who is now down 96.8%.

i’m not sure why youre singling out scott here. but since you did, id love an update on gitcoin’s fund (which has somehow seemingly evolved without governance approval, into scott’s fund, with gitcoin supposedly getting a percentage of the carry). perhaps some of that yield could be sent into the gitcoin treasury or matching pool (organizational destinations; nothing would flow to gtc holders, and this was a question about an unresolved dispute, not a plan).

@peth

Numba go up > people happy > people talk about the project > project usage grows > project attracts contributors > numba go up > repeat.

im open to seeing this happen. i think a debate about how to do it is healthy. fwiw my legal counsel has advised me personally not to create an “expectation of profit” or “pump the token”. but that doesn’t mean i am obligated to try and stop you or cant answer questions.

will be curious to see what people think is the best route below. personally i think the path forward should include increased product adoption (which means more monetizable surface area, and more impoact).. which then eventually allows gitcoin to cross into profitability. once comfortably in profit, the community could debate what to do with organizational profits (which gtc governs but has no economic claim on).

---

clarification (added 2026-08-04): this post was exploratory thinking shared for community debate, not an offer or a promise. gtc is a governance token with no economic rights, as it has been since launch in may 2021. finances discussed on the gov forum are those of gitcoin’s organizational entities. replies here responded to community tokenomics suggestions; discussing them was not endorsing them, and none (carry routing, buybacks, premium staking) were implemented. dyor.

---

Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.

[peth]

@owocki

lets start with whats going well: gitcoins product adoption is up ($7m in GMV in 2023 to $10m in 2024), and revenue is up (now close to $1m in 2024). we are doing innovative funding experiments again (like the deepfunding pilot we just announced with vitalik.

That sounds awesome! But from the outside view, it seems all of the cool “Gitcoin experiments” are simply projects that you‘re starting, building &/or funding yourself… Even Schelling Point seems to have been brought back by yourself, not the Gitcoin community. Is this correct or am I dead wrong?

@owocki

i’m not sure why youre singling out scott here. but since you did, id love an update on gitcoin’s fund (which has somehow seemingly evolved without governance approval, into scott’s fund, with gitcoin supposedly getting a percentage of the carry). perhaps some of that yield could be sent into the gitcoin treasury, matching pool, or used for GTC purposes you describe.

I just wanted to name 1 specific person and he‘s the one that I recently asked if he‘s still holding onto all of his GTC. I assume you‘re still holding it too, but I never asked you. And DAMN, appreciate this context, had no clue that was the fund he was talking about

@owocki

will be curious to see what people think is the best route below. personally i think the path forward should include increased product adoption (which means more monetizable surface area, and more impoact)… which then eventually allows gitcoin to cross into profitability. once comfortably in profit, there is lots of opportunities to channel that profit into various creative activities.

Definitely fully agree increasing product adoption & crossing into profitability/sustainability should be top priorities. But I also definitely think some of value should be flowing into or through GTC.

And just to make it clear - I‘m not even saying this to pump my bags. I‘m not holding any GTC at this point, but almost 100k addresses do. And I‘m sure many more would be keeping or buying & holding if there was any value accrual mechanism whatsoever…

Kudos to you for keeping on keeping on

[owocki]

@peth

That sounds awesome! But from the outside view, it seems all of the cool “Gitcoin experiments” are simply projects that you‘re starting, building &/or funding yourself… Even Schelling Point seems to have been brought back by yourself, not the Gitcoin community. Is this correct or am I dead wrong?

deepfunding and easyretropgf (and other experiments) are gitcoin projects. as the founder of gitcoin and as one of the faces of gitcoin, im sure ill get more credit/blame than i deserve for each of these. but it truly is a team effort. (err.. in a DAO world its actually a network-effort )

And DAMN, appreciate this context, had no clue that was the fund he was talking about

FWIW i think @deltajuliet is papering the fund “spinout” from gitcoin. thanks @deltajuliet for cleaning this up, hopefully itll all be copacetic soon!

@peth

Kudos to you for keeping on keeping on

i truly believe in gitcoins mission, purpose, network and plan to keep grinding on it. to me its clear were onto something important and fundamental to the 21st century. but i pay more attention to fundamentals (checkout my recent podcasts or books if you want to see what i see) than others do.

curious to see where this thread goes! maybe the community of stewards can come to alignment on a path forward for GTC in the comments. there is a hiearchy of ways to participate (proposals > comments > twitposts, constructive > unconstructive) and id especially value if constructive proposals that we can vote yes/no on are brought forward to advance the convo.

---

Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.

[free2ride19]

I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. The fact that GTC is down 96.8% despite Gitcoin being a successful product is a clear indication that the token price has a significant impact on the project’s overall health. It’s not just about the price itself, but also about the perception and sentiment it creates among users, contributors, and investors.

The feedback loop you described, where price action drives project success, is a real phenomenon that we’ve seen play out time and time again in the crypto space. It’s a vicious cycle that can be difficult to break, especially when the price is trending downwards.

I think it’s time for us to acknowledge that token price is not irrelevant, and that it has a significant impact on the project’s ability to attract and retain talent, as well as its overall treasury and compensation structure.

So, what can we do about it? Here are a few potential ideas:

1. Re-evaluate the tokenomics: Perhaps it’s time to reassess the token’s supply, distribution, and use cases to see if there are any opportunities to improve its value proposition.
2. Improve communication and transparency: Regular updates on the project’s progress, milestones, and challenges can help to build trust and confidence among users and investors.
3. Focus on building a strong community: A strong, engaged community can help to drive adoption, retention, and ultimately, price appreciation.
4. Explore alternative funding models: Perhaps it’s time to consider alternative funding models, such as grants, sponsorships, or even traditional venture capital, to reduce the project’s reliance on token price.

These are just a few ideas, and I’m sure there are many more potential solutions. I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas on how we can address this challenge and get GTC back on track."

[owocki]

@free2ride19

So, what can we do about it?

@peth any interest in forming a tokenomics committee? I’m imagining 3-5 high context community members with a certain amount of budget allocated to them that they can use to study GTC tokenomics and recommend a path forward?

---

Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.

[mars]

@peth

GTC is down 96.8%

Mind-boggling number that made me reflect and fact check. You right, screenshot from CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/gitcoin

Some relevant threads about $GTC:

GTC Token Center

TLDR GTC is a governance token that you can use to get utility within the Gitcoin network. This post describes a new resource, the GTC Token Center. With the GTC Token Center, Gitcoin citizens have a source of truth for what GTC is used for, and can manage their GTC balance, and the benefits that come with it. GTC stands for GTC Token Center Introduction Gitcoin is a network that provides benefits to it’s constituents in the form of sybil resistance & identity (Gitcoin Passport) capital al…

The Utility of GTC

Hello, I am working on doing an analysis of GitcoinDAO. I have been poring over the governance forum + many other resources. I wanted to lay out what I understand how the DAO views the utility of GTC/Gitcoin DAO. I wrote this post to hone my own understanding, but also was hoping to solicit understanding by others in the DAO. Utility Today As I understand it from this post, GTC was launched in May 2021 as a governance token for the Gitcoin network, which so far has funded $50 million of …

[Redapronpark]

@owocki

lets start with whats going well: gitcoins product adoption is up ($7m in GMV in 2023 to $10m in 2024), and revenue is up (now close to $1m in 2024). we are doing innovative funding experiments again (like the deepfunding pilot we just announced with vitalik.

This is a basic question-- But is it necessary for GTC value to be higher for this kind of product adoption and revenue to continue? Is GTC used for anything other than governance votes? And governance votes don’t directly impact who gets grants, right? Or do I misunderstand how it works together?

[owocki]

@Redapronpark

Is GTC used for anything other than governance votes?

governance, and also passport staking.

personally i think its a no-brainer to start giving it utility in grants stack + other apps… in the form of staking GTC to get premium features..

there are also a bunch of ideas that have been tracked in the gitcoin notion here: https://www.notion.so/gitcoin/GTC-Token-Economy-c3698b3563cc4613aec5325e893c5527?p=2fc5fefd48e64c90b967122a4747c3e0&pm=s

i think what @griff and co are doing over at giveth is a good example to follow. the GIV token can be used bigly in the giveeconomy.

---

clarification (added 2026-08-04): this post was exploratory thinking shared for community debate, not an offer or a promise. gtc is a governance token with no economic rights, as it has been since launch in may 2021. finances discussed on the gov forum are those of gitcoin’s organizational entities. replies here responded to community tokenomics suggestions; discussing them was not endorsing them, and none (carry routing, buybacks, premium staking) were implemented. dyor.

---

Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.

[tomislavmamic]

@owocki

i think what @griff and co are doing over at giveth is a good example to follow. the GIV token can be used bigly in the giveeconomy .

Giveth is trying every trick from the playbook but it still hasn’t yielded any results.

On another hand, ENS did nothing with their token and it bounced back successfully. Why?

[owocki]

@tomislavmamic

On another hand, ENS did nothing with their token and it bounced back successfully. Why?

ENS has a money printing machine (they sell domain names which are 99% margin)

@tomislavmamic

Giveth is trying every trick from the playbook but it still hasn’t yielded any results.

I respect Giveth a ton, and I’m not sure why their efforts havent yielded results (yet). It’d be interseting to study what we can learn from them. But also they’re just one data point out there I think!

---

Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.

[peth]

Was waiting to see if this thread causes any interest spike from the wider community, but it doesnt seem to be the case. Suspect people would jump in once they see there is a budget, but thats kind of meh… Appreciate your engagement and thoughts but I‘ll pass.

[mars]

@peth

any interest spike from the wider community

That’s the most active discussion on the forum in a long time!

@peth

I‘d personally want to implement all of these changes, but obviously not everyone is as extreme

@peth

but I‘ll pass

Recently you posted something about Metagame: MetaGame is dead, long live MetaGame! - by peth

What is next on your plate?

@owocki

personally i think its a no-brainer to start giving it utility in grants stack + other apps… in the form of staking GTC to get premium features…

Absolutely. See also this issue: Curation of the homepage + grouping by the entiry across chains + potential auction using $GTC · Issue #3464 · gitcoinco/grants-stack · GitHub