Reigniting the Gitcoin Vision for ALLO

[disruptionjoe1]

I appreciate your attention to my potentially contentious nerd-sniping efforts. At the heart of it is a desire to see Gitcoin succeed. I really appreciate the steelman format.

@owocki

• Gitcoin is focused on Grants, while Allo is focused on capital allocation. Unbundling these two could allow for more focus in both domains. Both in technology and in finance. Right now there is limited dev bandwidth across both, and limited financial resources for both.
• ALLO as a seperate entity could be unencumbered by the history of GTC.

I remember this story from Danielo talking about the issues of two entities focused on producing the same outcome. Once the sub-entity has autonomy it can produce more, but the founding entity may rightfully push back.

@danlessa

The Tale of the Decentralized Common Goods Factory and its own Sybil Detection Generator

(If is too wacky, replace DCG Factory → Factory, and Sybil Detection → Electricity)

Let’s imagine a fictitious factory. The Decentralized Common Goods (DCG) Factory, which is owned and managed by the diligent Quadratic Bot, which concerns itself only with maximizing the quality and the positive externalities of what’s being produced.

Quadratic Bot knows that the DCG Factory consumes a lot of Sybil Detection energy, and in order to have consistent production results, he decides to purchase and operate its own Sybil Detection Generator, which provides this critical piece of infrastructure to the factory to be autonomous.

At some point in time, Quadratic Bot decides that the factory should be less monolithic and that its core functions should be more decentralized and autonomous. As a result of that, the Sybil Detection Generator now has its own manager: Not-Sybil.

Not-Sybil, which is as diligent as Quadratic Bot, also only concerns himself with the quality and the positive externalities of what’s produced too. The product in this case is delivering the best Sybil Detection to his users.

As the DCG Factory is decentralized and open-source, the commoners of the local village quickly take notice of all the innovation happening inside it, including the Sybil Detection Generator, which is tailored end-to-end for being as optimal as possible for its function.

Not-Sybil, observing the demand for Sybil Detection and taking in mind his mission of maximizing positive externalities, decides that it can be a good idea to expand the Sybil Detection Generator capacity and technology for more deeply integrating with the community demands.

Quadratic Bot is enthusiastic, but this capacity is way more than he needs, and it is not obvious how the payoff is going to be in terms of the quality improval on the factory products. It may even be a distraction.

Quadratic Bot and Not-Sybil are intertwined in a dilemma. There are no questions about the history and the ownership: it was Quadratic Bot who bought and took the risk for the Sybil Detection Ownership. But now that it is being managed by Not-Sybil, the goals are different. Quadratic Bot wants the generator to provide critical services. Not-Sybil wants the generator to provide the best services.

How do we untangle that? One option is to re-absorb the Sybil Detection Generator under the Quadratic Bot guidance and dismiss / re-educate Not-Sybil. Make it provide the critical service again.

Another one is to imagine a future where the Sybil Detection Generator becomes its own autonomous organization. On which Sybil Detection is also a decentralized common good product too, which is used as a critical service by multiple villages and projects.

The future is uncertain and risky. Discovering and mapping it beforehand, and making explicit the landmarks and obstacles can allow for us to have a grasp of the journey without taking points of no return.

@owocki

Allo as its own entity could spin a flywheel that creates exponential value as follows.

1. Developers deploy Allo apps.
2. Users use Allo apps to allocate capital in their communities
3. $ALLO treasury allocates $ALLO to developers + users who are on the biggest, best, and most innovative Allo builds.

I could see this flywheel also being how many in the ecosystem choose to delegate. Imagine there are three big partners contributing GMV. What does this governance look like? What expands influence while not relinquishing control too quickly?

@owocki

Gitcion would benefit from the innovation flywheel above as a tokenholder and a builder on the tech.

Gitcoin could also fund grants rounds to builders on the tech. Really dogfooding opportunity.

@owocki

Gitcoin has already gone through several re-orgs and another one would be crushing for current momentum.

I’d love to catch up on current momentum, but having difficulty finding clarity on the current 1-2 year objectives. Maybe I’m just bad at foruming tho.

@owocki

Here’s a prompt I’d love to hear more from the community on: If ALLO was to become its own DAO, how would it Allocate it’s token table? How much tokens to whom and over what timeline? What would the value prop of the ALLO token be?

Great questions. I wanted to spark the conversation, but this is likely a great place for community involvement. I’d even suggest gitcoin fund 2-3 top tokenomics teams to suggest a model if this gets quality positive engagment.