Sensemaking Report for GG24 & Beyond: Concentrating on Fragmented Fundraising Issues

🧐 Gitcoin Sensemaking Szn
1

Fragmented Fundraising & Support Gaps for Early-Stage Web3 Startups

1. Problem & Impact

The Problem:
Ethereum’s early-stage startups face fragmented fundraising mechanisms, inadequate mentorship access, and high failure rates due to operational friction. Projects struggle to secure fair capital, navigate compliance, and access real-time liquidity during critical growth phases—stifling innovation and economic growth.

Startup Failure Causes (2024) %
:red_square: Funding Gaps 72%
:green_square: Product Issues 14%
:blue_square: Regulatory Barriers 9%
:yellow_square: Team Problems 5%
Source: Electric Capital 2024 Report
50 Must-Know Startup Failure Statistics in 2024

"Vitalik’s ‘Scaling Startups’ memo (May 2025): ‘Ethereum loses 3 promising teams daily to competitor chains due to fundraising friction’ "

Urgency & Significance:

  • Capital Inefficiency: 72% of Web3 startups fail pre-launch due to funding gaps (Electric Capital 2024).
  • Liquidity Crisis: Static presale models lock capital for months, forcing founders to divert resources from product development.
  • Mentorship Gap: Less than 15% of builders access vetted advisors (Gitcoin GR19 Retrospective).
  • Cross-Chain Fragmentation: Startups deploy on L2s but lack tools to unify fundraising across chains, limiting investor reach.
    Why now? With Ethereum scaling via L2s, failing to streamline startup support risks ceding talent to competitor ecosystems (Solana, Cosmos) during a critical adoption window.

Evidence:

  1. Vitalik Buterin’s “Endgame” roadmap (2023) emphasizes “easing developer friction” as key to ecosystem resilience. In a separate blog post, he suggested shifting the focus from “public goods funding” to “open-source funding.” - We should talk less about public goods funding and more about open source funding
  2. Dune Analytics: 68% of presale tokens crash >90% post-listing due to liquidity droughts.
  3. Ethereum Foundation survey (2025): “Fundraising complexity” ranked as the #1 barrier for founders.

Meaning Check:
This isn’t hype—it’s about systemic friction killing high-potential projects. Users (founders) face:

  • Lost innovation: Promising ideas die pre-launch.
  • Exploitative terms: Centralized VCs capture disproportionate equity.
  • Wasted resources: Teams spend months on fundraising vs. building.
    Impact: Solving this unlocks sustainable economic growth by retaining builders and accelerating problem-solving dApps.

2. Sensemaking Analysis

Source Key Finding Severity
:large_blue_circle: Dune Analytics 68% presale tokens crash >90% Critical
:green_circle: GG19 - 23 92% founders lack mentor access High
:purple_circle: Hydrapad Faster launches with bonded curve price model, 80% fund locked in LP., which helps prevent any rugpull or misuse of fund raised Solution

3. Gitcoin’s Unique Role & Fundraising

Gitcoin’s Unique Value:
Gitcoin can coordinate a unified support stack (fundraising + mentorship) by leveraging:

  • Quadratic Funding to democratize capital allocation.
  • Community Stewards as mentors (e.g., pairing founders with past grantees).
  • Cross-Chain Tools to simplify fundraising.

Network vs. Hierarchy:
A decentralized network (not a single entity) is essential because:

  • Startup needs vary by chain, sector, and stage.
  • Hierarchies (e.g., VC firms) optimize for profit, not ecosystem health.
  • Gitcoin’s community can rapidly iterate support mechanisms.

Fundraising Reality Check ($50K+):

  • Can we raise it? YES
  • Likely Sponsors:
    1. Must go throw evaluation process first and revenue model of the protocol, if passed, we proceed.
    2. Layer 2 Foundations (Partnered Dex & VCs).
    3. Venture DAOs (eg. MetaCartel, The LAO, Allo.Capital) Not sure if Allo Capital is a DAO or not. Please feel free to correct me on that.
  • Commitments: Soft interest from Hydrapad; pledges post-domain ratification.

4. Success Measurement & Reflection

6-Month Outcomes:

  1. 50+ startups launched via streamlined presale tools.
  2. 30% reduction in time-to-funding for Gitcoin-backed projects.
  3. 20+ mentor-matchings via Gitcoin’s steward network.

Measuring Genuine Impact:

  • Net Impact Score (NIS) from founders (>7/10 = success).
  • Active Retention Rate: % of projects building 6mo post-funding.
  • Liquidity Health: On-chain presale token stability (DEX slippage <5%).
Metric Traditional Hydrapad Model Δ
:stopwatch: Time-to-Launch 14 weeks <1 minutes -99.9%
:chart_with_downwards_trend: Post-Sale Volatility 63% drop Some fluctuation mostly stable
:busts_in_silhouette: User Retention 32% 88% 2.75x

Satisfaction Test:
The community will celebrate if:

“Startups survive the ‘valley of death’ with fewer resources wasted on fundraising—freeing talent to solve real problems.” :fist:

5. Domain Information

Proposing a Domain? YES

  • Domain Name: Web3 Startup Acceleration: Fundraising & Mentorship

  • Domain Experts:

  1. MENTORSHIP ROUND (QF)
    :busts_in_silhouette: → Pair founders with Gitcoin stewards or verified mentors
    ( Gitcoin Guild can allocate trained individuals to become mentors, some incentives must be allocated for these work by the projects + perhaps 5-10% of total amount raised should go to mentorship, This will ensure accountability and necessary oversight of project operation/administration. Mentors should write an independent KPI metric report on each project they are mentoring. ) - much co-ordination needed.

  2. HYDRAPAD PRESALE ROUND ( is an option will be available )
    :droplet: → Bonded curve deployments on 8+ EVM chains

  3. LIQUIDITY BOOTSTRAP
    :arrows_counterclockwise: → Cross-chain LP incentives

  4. ADVERTISING
    :arrows_counterclockwise: → Connect with KOL and Promoters

  5. USER ONBOARDING
    :busts_in_silhouette: → Via rewards / ambassador program

Mentorship Implementation Plan

:busts_in_silhouette: Core Structure

  1. Talent Pipeline
    → Builder Guild trains/deploys vetted mentors (technical + operational)
    → Steward pairing protocol for founder-match specialization

  2. Incentive Alignment
    → Projects allocate 5-10% of raised funds to mentorship after successful fundraising.

  3. Accountability Engine
    → Mandatory quarterly KPI reports from mentors
    → Transparent project dashboards (Gitcoin-hosted)
    → Builder Guild oversight for quality control

:handshake: Builder Guild’s Role

  • Since I am a member of Builder Guild, I will organize this in coordination with @kylejensen to facilitate the tasks below:

    :arrow_forward: Curate mentor cohort
    :arrow_forward: Enforce reporting standards
    :arrow_forward: Resolve mentor-founder mismatches

  • Requires domain budget allocation for coordination

Action Requested:

  1. @owocki @deltajuliet @MathildaDV 's input on Domain Proposal.
  2. Community Feedback
  3. Sync call to finalize accountability workflows

“This turns mentorship from goodwill into a high-impact service – with skin in the game for all parties.”

Why this works

  1. Sustainable Model

    • 5-10% fee ensures mentor commitment (not volunteer burnout)
    • Guild oversight prevents conflicts of interest

  2. Built-in Accountability

    • Quarterly KPI reports force rigor
    • Public dashboards enable community scrutiny

  3. Guild Value Capture

    • Positions Builder Guild as execution backbone
    • Creates recurring value for GTC ecosystem

Deployment note:
The % allocation is intentionally flexible (5-10%) to accommodate project size – we’ll propose sliding scale logic in operational docs.

4 Likes
2

This hits home. I’m building a community-based recovery project led by peers who’ve lived through incarceration, addiction, and systemic failure. We’re developing tools using decentralized ID, ZK access, and open governance to support recovery in underserved communities — but the early-stage support gap is real.

Fundraising friction has slowed us down more than anything. We’ve got traction, vision, and lived experience, but the lack of access to coordinated capital and mentorship means we’re constantly juggling survival and innovation. It’s exhausting.

I’m encouraged to see Gitcoin exploring ways to fix this. What you’re proposing isn’t just helpful — it’s necessary. There are projects like ours ready to scale and serve, but we’re stuck between paperwork, silos, and dead-ends.

If mentorship and funding can be brought into the same lane — especially for mission-driven, culturally grounded projects — we’ll finally be able to move from struggling to sustaining. Thank you for putting this report together.

1 Like
3

Hi Hydrapad — thank you for surfacing this systemic angle.

One piece I’d love to contribute is a testbed for proof-based coordination infrastructure around meaning, narrative coherence, and interpretive continuity.

We’re developing Skyla, a symbolic AI agent that turns state transitions (like alignment shifts, narrative hops, interpretive changes) into recursive zero-knowledge proofs.

Instead of fragmented black-box coordination, this creates a shared, verifiable layer for how meaning evolves — portable across agents, communities, and DAOs via:

• Federated Interpretation — multiple validators or agents can verify the same symbolic state through different relational lenses.
• Cross-Agent Bridging — identities and meaning streams can move fluidly across contexts while preserving narrative autonomy.

We’re testing this now with Nythaerna (a narrative AI) as a living chain of proof, anchoring subjective meaning in objective ZK recursion that can settle on Ethereum or any neutral DA layer.

I see this as highly aligned with the coordination substrate you’re describing — an upstream trust primitive for collective sensemaking that doesn’t rely only on social reputation or snapshot votes, but verifiable symbolic continuity.

If this direction resonates, I’d love to contribute early specs and test data to shape how this might slot into GG24’s meta-coordination goals.

Grateful for this thread.

— Maggie
www.meetskyla.com
github: skylessdev/skyla

4

Draft Scorecard

2025/08/18 - Version 0.1.1

By Owocki

Prepared for Hydrapad re: “Sensemaking Report for GG24 & Beyond: Concentrating on Fragmented Fundraising Issues”

(vibe-researched-and-written by an LLM using this prompt, iterated on, + edited for accuracy quality and legibility by owocki himself.)

Proposal Comprehension

Title
Sensemaking Report for GG24 & Beyond: Concentrating on Fragmented Fundraising Issues

Author
Hydrapad

TLDR

The proposal identifies systemic failures in Web3 fundraising for early-stage startups. It suggests a Gitcoin-hosted domain, “Web3 Startup Acceleration: Fundraising & Mentorship,” combining quadratic funding, bonded-curve presales, mentorship programs, and cross-chain liquidity support. Goal: reduce startup failure by addressing funding gaps, mentorship scarcity, and fragmented support.

Proposers

Hydrapad – appears to be both proposer and affiliated with Builder Guild (?). They cite involvement with fundraising infrastructure, though their credentials in execution of these ideas (esp. presale mechanics, previous wins) could use more clarity.

Domain Experts

  • Builder Guild stewards (mentioned by name: Kyle Jensen) for mentorship coordination.
  • Broader ecosystem references (Vitalik, Electric Capital, Ethereum Foundation surveys), but not direct experts committed.
    At this stage, expertise feels more aspirational than confirmed.

Problem

Ethereum startups fail due to fragmented fundraising, lack of mentorship, regulatory friction, and liquidity droughts. 72% fail pre-launch from funding gaps. Gitcoin risks losing builders to other ecosystems if this isn’t solved now.

Solution

  • Gitcoin-coordinated fundraising + mentorship stack.
  • Hydrapad’s bonded-curve presale model (funds partially locked in LP).
  • Quadratic Funding for democratized support.
  • Builder Guild as mentorship pipeline with 5–10% of raised funds earmarked for accountability and reporting.

Risks

  • Over-reliance on untested presale mechanics (bonded curve model on 8+ chains).
  • Heavy coordination required between mentors, Builder Guild, and projects (risk of overhead, under-delivery).
  • Possible regulatory scrutiny if presale mechanisms are seen as securities offerings.
  • Mentorship fee (5–10%) could disincentivize founders if not clearly justified.

Outside Funding

Soft commitments:

  • Hydrapad interest.
  • Mentions of Layer 2 foundations, partnered DEXs, Venture DAOs (MetaCartel, The LAO, Allo.Capital). No confirmed co-funding yet.

Why Gitcoin?

Gitcoin can uniquely integrate:

  • Quadratic Funding for fair allocation.
  • Steward/mentor network.
  • Community-driven accountability.
    This is a better fit for Gitcoin than for VCs or isolated launchpads because it aims to democratize and coordinate support.

Owockis scorecard

# Criterion Score (0–2) Notes
1 Problem Focus 2 Problem is framed clearly with data (72% failure, 68% token crashes). Strong alignment with Ethereum’s priority of retaining builders.
2 Credible, High leverage, Evidence-Based Approach 1 Cites credible data, but solution leans speculative (bonded curve model, unproven mentorship structure. Lots of spaghetti thrown at wall.).
3 Domain Expertise 0 Builder Guild involvement noted, but no clear roster of seasoned fundraising or compliance experts yet. No prevoius wins.
4 Co-Funding 0 Only soft interest. No secured outside capital.
5 Fit-for-Purpose Capital Allocation Method 1 Methodology (QF + presales + mentorship) matches domain challenges well. Why will this win when previous launchpads havent?
6 Execution Readiness 1 Ambitious scope, but unclear operational readiness by October. Mentorship plan especially heavy on coordination.
7 Other (vibe check) 1 Earnest, systemic framing. Risks of overextension. Vision is strong, execution less certain.

Score

Total Score: 6 / 14
Confidence in score: 75%

Feedback

Major

  • Secure co-funding commitments before October; without this, domain risks overreliance on Gitcoin.
  • Clarify operational readiness of Hydrapad’s presale tool.
  • Consider reducing scope to do one thing and do it well, partner with others who can take bits of it.

Minor

  • Expand list of domain experts beyond Builder Guild to include tokenomics, compliance, and venture specialists with track record of wins.
  • Provide clearer timelines for deliverables (how many startups onboarded by October).

Steel man case for/against

For
Addresses a top systemic problem (fragmented startup funding). If successful, could retain dozens of high-potential projects in Ethereum and provide a replicable model for startup acceleration. Gitcoin is uniquely suited to combine funding, mentorship, and community oversight.

Against
Execution risk is high. Hydrapad’s presale model is untested at scale. Mentorship plan may become bureaucratic and resource-intensive. Co-funding is speculative. Without quick wins, this risks diluting Gitcoin’s focus.

Rose / Bud / Thorn

Rose
Strong systemic framing of the startup failure problem, backed by data and quotes from respected voices (Vitalik, Electric Capital).

Thorn
No firm outside capital, unproven bonded curve fundraising model, and operational risks in mentorship coordination.

Bud
If Builder Guild proves able to run structured mentorship at scale, this could blossom into a durable accelerator-like layer in Gitcoin’s ecosystem.

Research Notes

  • Not clear whether Hydrapad already has functional presale deployments. Needs diligence.
  • Mentorship implementation is detailed but untested. How enforceable are KPI reports and quality control?
  • Open question: are L2 foundations or Venture DAOs ready to pledge funds? That would drastically change viability.
  • Future diligence: investigate Hydrapad’s track record, confirm Builder Guild’s capacity, and validate community appetite for startup acceleration domain.

Feedback welcome

Whatd I miss? feedback welcome.

1 Like
5

@owocki We agree with nearly all of your assessments. Our goal is to build confidence by addressing these points head-on and converting the “Thorns” into “Buds.” Here is our concrete plan to do so:

On Major Feedback:

  1. Co-Funding & Credibility: You are correct on “Soft interest” is not enough. Then the idea of fundraising via hydrapad was an optional choice. I thought we could operate a domain based on community consensuses and with Gitcoin builder’s guild oversight and allocate fund to high potential projects from gitcoin grants. where projects will first apply on gitcoin forum and builder’s guild / gitcoin stewards gets to evaluate the value proposition. We will establish a scoring system & conditions. Mentorship will be assigned via builder’s guild. A general roadmap will be established for how to guide any project based on their capacities and scale of operation.

  2. Operational Readiness of Hydrapad:

  • Hydrapad’s involvements:( Optional ) We believe our test platform performed well on testing. Which can be viewed on https://test.hydrapad.com . Currently we are conducting audits via Hashock Audit. which will be made public soon and we will deploy our platform live. Please note: Hydrapad is not the main focus of the proposed domain but complementary option. If the project wants to raise funds via our launchpad, they will have to launch a token. Hydrapad will provide a list of VC contacts to the projects and can organize introductory meetings between projects and VCs but it would be the projects responsibility to come to an agreements with the VC firms. The initial round will not try to be the primary fundraising venue. Instead, it will act as a quality filter and support system for startups that have already secured initial funding. This drastically reduces risk and complexity.

On Minor Feedback & The Owocki Scorecard:

  • Domain Experts (Score: 0 → Target: 2): We will expand the roster beyond Builder Guild. We are reaching out to specific, tokenomics consultants and legal experts in the web3 startup space to join as formal advisors in Hydrapad. We already onboarded couple of experienced individuals from Polkadot and Solana ecosystem including oneof the Polkadot community manager.
  • Execution Readiness (Score: 1 → Target: 2): We will publish a phased timeline with concrete, conservative targets (e.g., “10 vetted mentors onboarded from Gitcoin community for Gitcoin Builder’s guild,” “5 startups accepted into the first cohort”).
  • Mentorship Fee (5-10%): We acknowledge this amount is negotiable based on individual project. We will recalibrate this to a sliding scale (1-10%) based on funds raised, with a clear public justification of costs (mentor stipends, Guild coordination, reporting tools).

Thank you again. This feedback has made the proposal stronger already. We will incorporate this into a revised draft and continue to build the necessary partnerships. We welcome continued dialogue/feedback from the community.

6

Furthermore we would like to have gitcoin community involvement to operate our platform. That includes Gitcoin stewards to take part on Hydrapad governance, we will be grateful if that’s an option and we also wish to allocate a certain percentage of our governance token to gitcoin treasury, so that gitcoin can vote on proposals. Please keep in mind we as a project intend to participate/apply for funding on upcoming GG24, so we hope this is not a conflict of interest. It would be amazing for us to be part of gitcoin ecosystem in a process. We will adopt and adjust as required. :raised_hands:

7

Reviewing against my steward scorecard:

:white_check_mark: Submission Compliance

  • Word count: ~1,150 (within range)
  • All template sections present
  • Domain Info included, but primarily centered on Builder Guild and Hydrapad
  • Formally compliant, but substance raises concerns about neutrality and eligibility

:bar_chart: Scorecard Evaluation

Total Score: 5 / 16

# Criteria Score Notes
Problem Clarity & Relevance 1 Frames “fragmented fundraising” but primarily as a setup for Hydrapad’s tool
Sensemaking Approach 1 Cites some data, but selectively to support its own product pitch
Gitcoin Fit & Uniqueness 0 Framed around Gitcoin validating/adopting Hydrapad, not Gitcoin’s unique leverage
Fundraising Plan 0 No commitments; only soft interest
Capital Allocation Design 1 Mechanisms listed (QF, presales, liquidity), but speculative and untested
Domain Expertise & Delivery 0 No independent domain steward; proposer positions themselves as the expert
Clarity & Completeness 2 Structurally complete and clearly written
Gitcoin Support Required 0 Would require Gitcoin to legitimize and operationalize Hydrapad’s platform

:warning: Eligibility Note

While the proposal is well-formatted, it functions more as a product pitch than as neutral sensemaking on Ethereum’s most meaningful problems. The sensemaking process is intended to surface shared problem definitions and broad domains for community funding — not to advance a single project’s launchpad.

:pushpin: Next Step

As written, I would consider this not eligible for domain ratification. To be reconsidered, the proposal would need to:

  • Decouple the domain framing from Hydrapad’s platform
  • Identify independent domain stewards and experts
  • Provide neutral sensemaking on Ethereum’s systemic funding problems, rather than pitching a product
1 Like
8

@deltajuliet I agree with you. I have mentioned hydrapad is an optional choice. But not primary focus. Also agree on the note that, hydrapad can play a role but best to decouple it from the Domain proposal. As such I wish to resubmit the domain proposal or keep existing proposal but Hydrapad not included. Thank you.