[S17 Proposal] DRAFT Gitcoin Public Goods Funding Budget Request

Public Goods Funding S17 Workstream Budget Proposal

Thank you to the whole PGF workstream for their help shaping this proposal draft and all the work put in to push us forward as a DAO in S16. A particular shout out to @Maxwell for all his help shaping this budget.

Essential Intents

During S17, we will continue to prioritize the following EIs

  • EI1: Protocol Adoption
  • EI2: Financial Sustainability
  • EI3: DAO Organization
  • EI4: Grants Program Success


Our S16 goals were:

  • Launch Gitcoin Protocol Alpha Round Successfully
  • Transition 90% of selected & willing grantees successfully for Alpha round to the protocol
  • Transition Partners successfully to the protocol
  • Determine future of the program + services strategy + structure
  • Plan Partner + community retreat in support of protocol launch

PGF has remained on track to hit these goals. The two caveats are that (1) we’re still aligning on details of the services strategy and communicating that more clearly to the broader community (2) we haven’t fully scheduled and transitioned partners to the protocol. That said, we are in conversation with partners about scheduling rounds from March onward after we launch the beta of Allo Protocol and start testing a fee for service model. We are also in discussions about running featured rounds in April when we launch the next iteration of the Gitcoin Program during our Beta period.

We’d also like to celebrate behind the scenes work that exceeded our goals. We launched the UNICEF Innovation round in Q4 2022 that raised over 130 ETH (50 ETH from UNICEF Innovation and 80 ETH from 15,500 Donors)!!

In addition, a less tangible highlight is how the PGF team has become a tight and highly efficient unit. It wasn’t easy to reorg the team but we’re down a total of 50% of contributors over the past 3 seasons to 9 FT and 2 PT contributors and one contributor on leave (@annika we’re excited to have you back soon). We’re building a strong culture of talented, highly effective, and dedicated contributors.

Our main goals for S17 are twofold:
Protocol growth readiness and Gitcoin Grants Program readiness.

Our overarching priority in S17 is to continue setting up the protocol for successful adoption with solid infrastructure to drive sustainable growth.

Overall we will

  1. Developing runbooks and guides for communities to use to run QF rounds and drive adoption
  2. Running test rounds with partners to onboard and enable them to manage their own programs permissionlessly
  3. Defining and launching the Core Gitcoin Grants Program in April, to embrace our DAO’s goal of funding public goods with our protocol
  4. Defining and providing a paid services offering to early adopters until a fully self serve approach is viable


PGF’s total request will be $606,000 USD for S17. A 30% decrease from last season. Accounting for 60+ day reserves and current reserves we are requesting $337,903 USD for S17. A 68% decrease from last season.

1) The amount of GTC requested and the value of the reserves will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Tally using the lower of the current price or the 20 day moving average, whichever is lower.

2) The Treasury Request amount is an estimate using the price of $2.10 GTC to calculate the total of the reserves rolled over from Season 16.

Milestone Report for the past Season

:green_circle: Success
:yellow_circle: Incomplete, will hit goal or priority change
:red_circle: Incomplete, will not hit goal
:black_circle: Canceled - out of workstream’s control

Initiative/Project Always-on
Key Results
Value Delivered
Transition Partners successfully to the protocol

(EI: 1+2+4)
NO :yellow_circle: Made progress towards scheduling 12 protocol rounds with previous ecosystem partners.

So far X amount of protocol rounds have been scheduled, with many more ongoing conversations with key partners.

Defined partner onboarding roadmap and support in collaboration with other workstreams.

Continued having 1-1 protocol education conversations key partners explaining protocol value

Continuing to scope services contracts with partners according to their needs / requirements for round success
Launch Gitcoin Protocol Alpha Round Successfully

(EI: 1+3+4)
YES :green_circle: We executed a highly successful alpha round with UNICEF, raising over 80 ETH from 15,500 Donors.

Launched three more successful alpha rounds for OSS, Climate, and Eth Infra
Transition 90% of selected & willing grantees successfully for Alpha round to the protocol

(EI: 1+2+3+4)
NO :green_circle: 100% of cimatee grantees were transitioned successfully over to the protocol in the climate round.

62% of viable OSS grantees applied for the OSS round.

70% applied to the Eth Infra round. Many that were not were because they no longer qualified (inactive githubs, raised VC funding etc.)
Determine future of the program + services strategy + structure

(EI: 1+2+4)
NO :yellow_circle: Future of the program and services strategy has largely been solidified internally within PGF, and we shared the program strategy on the forum for wider community feedback.

We’re using our alpha rounds to determine run books for anyone to run rounds on the protocols and identifying gaps to build services in the interim vs building services that aren’t applicable.
Plan Partner + community retreat for Schelling Point protocol launch

(EI: 1+4)
YES :green_circle: First ever Gitcoin Community Retreat to celebrate public goods funding leaders and activate our community around the protocol has been planned for pre-ETHDenver.

S17 Objectives and Key Results

List of S17 OKRs

Initiative/Project Always-on
Metrics Key Results /
Likely Deliverables /
Test and establish infrastructure to support successful Gitcoin Grants Program Rounds and Protocol Adoption

(EI: 1+2)

NO Build operational runbook that is utilized by partners, empowering current and future partner success and establishing Gitcoin as a leader in providing clear funding processes Metric B

Decrease time the PGF team spends doing administrative and operational support to deliver a successful grants round by >40% with the use of runbooks

Ensure consistency and support for partners through creating runbooks for partners to run a round either self-service (with minimal Gitcoin Operational support) and/or to experiment during featured rounds as part of the Gitcoin Grants program

Publish grantee handbooks based on alpha round learnings to ensure grantees are set up for success without as much hands on support from PGF

Author FAQ for partners and grantees in close collaboration with DAO Ops knowledge-base team leading to lower hands-on time with grantees and increased satisfaction

Improve and tighten feedback loops between PGF and Support, Product, and DevRel to drive forward more cohesive messaging increasing overall grantee, donor, and partner satisfaction
Solidify Future of Program and launch first Gitcoin Program Beta Round

(EI: 1+2+3)

NO GTC Holders voted on the 3-6 rounds for the Gitcoin Core Program

GTC Holders voted eligibility criteria

Gitcoin runs 3-6 Core Program Rounds in April

Run at least 5-8 (ambitiously 10) partner Featured rounds alongside the Gitcoin Core Program rounds to create the Gitcoin Program “Festival”
Develop process for GTC holder community voting on Core Program rounds and eligibility criteria and review for each round

Conduct and test revenue forecasting for the Gitcoin Program Featured Rounds

Ensure partnerships tactics and strategies to engage more consistent funding of future Gitcoin rounds

Work closely with MMM and Support to use economies of scale to run many rounds at once in an advantageous way, where network effects helps bolster the success of the program and the value of funding public goods
Define partner prioritization strategy

(EI: 1+2+3)

NO Clear rubric for when to partner with a given program / protocol

Criteria for when to say no to a partnership and/or direct them to self-service options
Partnerships develops a partner prioritization roadmap and solidifies strategic focus for simulated rounds (e.g. by legitimacy, growth, effort)

Defines needs / expectations from other workstreams (e.g. MMM + GPC) to ensure partner success

Being able to clearly defining verticals / what to sell in order to optimize partner economics
Support partner test rounds on the protocol

(EI: 1+2+3)

NO 5-10 partner test rounds planned with small matching pools

8-10 partners commitment to running larger partner rounds (between S17 - S18)
Continuing scheduling and begin executing 5-10 partners running small (10-15 eth) test round mid/end March with commitments to running a program featured round in April

Combine early work around services with ongoing partner prioritization work, driving forward service support for adoption growth from beta launch
Execute first-ever Gitcoin Community Gathering

(EI: 1+3+4)

NO Community Gathering executed with rave reviews from attendees (ideally 80% 5 star rating from those that respond to end of event survey) and increased interest in and excitement about the protocol

Have 3-5 partnership commits come out of the retreat over the next two seasons
Execute a high-quality, intimate retreat that excites our community and drives interest in the protocol

Conduct follow up survey with all attendees to hear about their experience

Conduct follow up calls with all attendees that could be relevant partners
Business Development and Revenue Opportunities

(EI: 1+2+3)

NO 2-3 recurring revenue partnerships solidified Pushing forward key deals closed in s16, namely partnerships for self sustaining funding for Gitcoin with an oDAO from Rocket Pool, and sequencer fees from zksync

Examining other self-sustaining funding such as receiving percent of Hop Protocol’s fee switch for funding public goods.

Exploring other fee switches, sequencer fees, cex fees, across the wider crypto ecosystem

Protocol fee switch for organizations who want to build on top of the protocol

Budget Breakdown

View: USD per Initiative/Project

Initiative/Project Amount USD %
Program Readiness (formerly a portion of Grant Operations and Partnerships)
$237,125 40%
Growth Readiness (formerly Partnerships and portion of grant ops)
$318,875 53%
PGF Operations $50,000 8%
Total $606,000 100%

View: USD per Category

Budget Category Description Amount USD
Core Contributors Former WS Lead on Mat Leave (Annika)
WS Lead (Janine)
Growth Lead (Connor O.)
Program Core Round Lead (Ben W.)
Grants Round Account Manager (Kieran O.)
WS Lead (Scott)
Partnerships Lead (Azeem)
Ecosystem Developer (Juanna)
PGF Operations + Partnerships (Maxwell)
Trusted Contributors Cause Round Support (Coleen)
Grants Support (Madison)
Data Support (Umar)
Virtual Assistant
Partnerships Technical Support (Eli)
Hiring, Bounties, HIT Roles External Round Manager (New PT Hire)
Services Support (New PT Hire)
Financial / Revenue Growth Support (New PT Hire)
Ecosystem Developer (New Hire)
Total $606,000

@J9leger thank you for posting. The stewards who volunteered to review the PGF budget are: @linda @PaigeDAO @bobjiang @lthrift and @ccerv1


I appreciate the symmetry in the initiative/project breakdown to what was in the graphic from the last PGF post.

I appreciate how this shows the likely route PGF could take to thinner workstreams. This budget has my support.


Bravo. Very clear breakdown and even with ‘new eyes’ easily understandable.
It’s also quite ambitious and indicates that you intend to be very busy for S17.

Happy to see that a community gathering is planned and budgeted for. You guys deserve it and such things go a long ways towards team building and cementing strong partnerships!

This budget has my full support. I have only one question, and that is, the ‘Trusted Contributors’ section appears somewhat lean, at least at first glance. But since I have no context, I don’t claim to have the full picture.

Overall: Really good work and budget breakdown - shows what a highly engaged and efficient team you are.


Thanks so much Paige, appreciate the note of endorsement.


the ‘Trusted Contributors’ section appears somewhat lean, at least at first glance. But since I have no context, I don’t claim to have the full picture.

Trusted Contributors in this sense just mean part-time team members. In general we’ve got a very lean team and want to make sure we’re not spending excess time managing a large bench of part-time contributors. Hope that helps answer your question.


Thanks for putting this together. It was well-documented and informative.

I am generally supportive of this request however given the market uncertainty as well as layoffs and hiring freezes across tech/crypto, are any of the new hires nice to have but not critical? I’m really hoping that the DAO (not just PGF) does not make new hires and increase burn during this market unless absolutely critical.


I am appreciating how clear and succinct this is.

PGF went through some big changes over the last season and a half. Cutting staff by A LOT. At this point, with the community gathering before EthDenver along with the uncertainties of launching the protocols, I am 100% in support for this budget.

I would like to address one point, though I know PGF is keenly aware of it. This is intended for other readers of this budget and the replies here:

We as an organization need to commit to subtraction mindset.

I’m still very concerned about the “services trap” wherein we begin to see service revenue and decide that it is a best investment. When we increase our investment in services we quickly tip the scales towards being a service org which scales linearly requiring lots of hiring rather than an impact network or protocol DAO.


Thanks @linda I fully appreciate your concern. The only full-time potential hire is to replace a role that was let go so is not an addition but a replacement. The other roles are all consultative roles and no one that would be a full-time hire as I don’t want to increase burn consistently. That said, we’re trying to be creative and look across the DAO to get support for some of these initiatives and to stewards as advisors where possible to potentially avoid these part-time hires.


Thanks @DisruptionJoe I’m fully in alignment here and as @kevin.olsen posted above, we’re making clear any services we do are a short-term bridge. Appreciate you raising.


Thanks! I definitely understand if that’s not possible but really appreciate any potential creativity there.

1 Like

I am supportive of this budget proposal and initiatives planned for S17. I appreciate the clear linkage between the initiatives and the metrics. I also want to applaud this workstream for the success of the three alpha rounds on the new protocol. (I remember there being a lot of debate about the format of S16; now, in retrospect, it seems you made the right calls!)

Are there any top-line goals for the overall amount of PGF that Gitcoin allocates in S17? My understanding is that this team is expected to scale its impact without growing headcount. So it would be helpful to view this budget in the context of the DAO’s growth aspirations.

I am feeling very optimistic that Gitcoin will continue to find product-market-fit in S17!


I am supportive for PGF budget request, and the proposal is very clear and detailed!

When I first heard there were only 9 FT in PGF, I was shocked. You’re so brilliant team to move forward, in special for the transitions from cGrant to dGrant. (many challenges behind)

A minor request (the same to other WS), could we have a holistic history for all the budget?

E.g S13 ($xxx)
S14 ($yyy)
S15 ($zzz)
S16 ($aaa)
S17 …


I am really impressed with how much you have cut the budget. Thank you for recognizing the market.

I’m in general supportive of this proposal, but I want to ask every workstream… what would happen if this proposal didn’t pass?

Not fear mongering, just a practical reality. What would “No” look like?


Hey guys. For this gitcoin budget season I will be following a different approach. I am not happy with how many things have been going in gitcoin and the way budget reviews work so I will either be abstaining or voting No in most budget reviews.

Despite the budget cuts I still think the DAO is burning too much money and it needs to become more lean.

For example from here the only parts I would think need funding (in this market) is running the rounds and finding the partners. The rest is … nice … but unnecessary in this market.


This is only my second full budgeting cycle as a contributor to Gitcoin so I’m trying to read/understand each one especially at this critical stage as we move from impact to impact/protocol DAO.

First, really appreciate that this team has spent time and energy restructuring this team.

I also love seeing this team embracing a test and learn mentality that will allow us to swiftly identify what works/what doesn’t and move forward.

I’m also happy to see a partner prioritization strategy planned as I think this will enhance efficiency/effectiveness.

I see how the vision for getting program managers/groups on the protocol by bringing them in to the Festival but I’d love to better understand if we anticipate everyone who uses the Stack to therefore initially be a Festival participant or if we will be allowing/enabling autonomous rounds to run this season (totally get it if not, just curious for those asking if they can just spin up their own round now).

I see a lot of KPIs tied to number of partners and their relative size, which makes sense given our main audience focus being program managers at this time.

Last of my questions was pertaining to the Community Gathering - is this more of a sales play or a reward for a job well done? A thank you? Would love to understand the size of the partner commits we envision coming out of this, and if there are any other KPIs related to donors/grantees that could be tied to this (not sure how just saying) I’d love to see them. I’d also love to better understand where this cost falls within this budget.

In future seasons, I’d love to better understand how this relates to the grantees (and thereby donors) attracted/onboarded/converted/retained. Ultimately, and this is not just related to this budget but more broadly speaking, I’d love for us to tie audience-level insights and goals to product-level goals to the broader DAO level goals as they relate to specific metrics we collectively define.

Overall - and like I said, I still feel new to this process - looking at the budgets by workstream feels fragmented to me and I’d love to better understand how we look at the larger DAO wide budget first to then inform the workstream ones. If there’s something I can reference like this, appreciate someone sharing.


Please note that this proposal has been posted on Snapshot for vote. The vote closes on Tuesday Feb 21.


If you have any issues voting, please ping shawn16400#5507 in discord for assistance.


As per my previous comment I am urging this workstream to become even more lean.

The only parts I would think need funding (in this market) is running the rounds and finding the partners.

The rest is just unnecessary.

To that end I will abstain from voting,

This snapshot vote has passed with ~62% approval rate.
1208 unique votes
~11.6M GTC tokens cast.
To note - 4.4M tokens abstained from voting.
Thank you to the reviewers @linda @PaigeDAO @bobjiang @lthrift and @ccerv1 - we really appreciate the time you took to review this in detail.

1 Like