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 isnât right.
State of things
Unfortunately, as weâve 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.
Iâd 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?
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. weâve 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%.
iâm not sure why youre singling out scott here. but since you did, id love an update on gitcoinâs fund (which has somehow seemingly evolved without governance approval, into scottâs 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.
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 âexpectation of profitâ or âpump the tokenâ. but that doesnât 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, there is lots of opportunities to channel that profit into various creative activities.
That sounds awesome! But from the outside view, it seems all of the cool âGitcoin experimentsâ are simply projects that youâre 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?
I just wanted to name 1 specific person and heâs the one that I recently asked if heâs still holding onto all of his GTC. I assume youâre 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
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 - Iâm not even saying this to pump my bags. Iâm not holding any GTC at this point, but almost 100k addresses do. And Iâm sure many more would be keeping or buying & holding if there was any value accrual mechanism whatsoeverâŚ
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 âspinoutâ from gitcoin. thanks @deltajuliet for cleaning this up, hopefully itll all be copacetic soon!
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.
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 projectâs overall health. Itâs 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 weâve seen play out time and time again in the crypto space. Itâs a vicious cycle that can be difficult to break, especially when the price is trending downwards.
I think itâs time for us to acknowledge that token price is not irrelevant, and that it has a significant impact on the projectâs 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:
Re-evaluate the tokenomics: Perhaps itâs time to reassess the tokenâs supply, distribution, and use cases to see if there are any opportunities to improve its value proposition.
Improve communication and transparency: Regular updates on the projectâs progress, milestones, and challenges can help to build trust and confidence among users and investors.
Focus on building a strong community: A strong, engaged community can help to drive adoption, retention, and ultimately, price appreciation.
Explore alternative funding models: Perhaps itâs time to consider alternative funding models, such as grants, sponsorships, or even traditional venture capital, to reduce the projectâs reliance on token price.
These are just a few ideas, and Iâm sure there are many more potential solutions. Iâd love to hear your thoughts and ideas on how we can address this challenge and get GTC back on track."
@peth any interest in forming a tokenomics committee? Iâm 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?
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 donât directly impact who gets grants, right? Or do I misunderstand how it works together?
ENS has a money printing machine (they sell domain names which are 99% margin)
I respect Giveth a ton, and Iâm not sure why their efforts havent yielded results (yet). Itâd be interseting to study what we can learn from them. But also theyâre just one data point out there I think!
)
