I hope soā¦ EDIT / UPDATE: more info updated citizens program strategy
Iāll keep helping and pretty sure Iāll get some ācashbackā from retro funding rounds, Iām also pretty active on the forum
Context on Discord:
TLDR: reporting bugs and suggesting UI / UX improvements genuinely adds value so I was doing it knowing hoping that there will be yet another Gitcoin citizen round.
Take a peek at the updated citizens program strategy here to gain a full understanding of how itāll move forward.
This is dope. Well done ser. Would love to dive deeper into how this is rolled out and the impact metrics that would be used to measure its effectiveness.
Community first - and steps in a promising direction.
Knowing how weāve always wanted to provide developer value to Allo from University communities partnered with B<>rder/ess, this is a proposal I support as a Gitcoin Citizen, as itād reduce the time it takes between implementation and impact.
Thanks for proposing this Owocki.
Also, did you mean āhereā to replace the there?
I like it. We have some experience with running rounds on Allo and therefore some ideas to try 
Iām for
woops i got that wrong. fixed now!
I also fully support this proposal and looking forward to the execution when passed!
Hi Kevin, hope you are doing well!
Iāve made quick math and ~6.9m over a period of 4 years which should be 4 rounds per year and estimate would be 16, at worst there might be an additional round you could squeeze during a summer buildup with frens who are aroundā¦
Average is 431 250 GTC, and itās a really decent amount to distribute within the community for each trimester + quadratic funding and partner funds cheers!
Iām simply astonish that, itās still alive and the threshold is at 50ish monthsā¦
(I donāt personally like the idea to lend at fixed high interest rate, as this is contrary to a circular economic system (you put 1$ in your pocket, a frens loose 1$) but I believe you could technically lock-in to supply letās say 2m over a period of 6-6-6 months, or even 3-3-3-3-3-3-3 and also in 2 term of 12 or 24 months, there is many approach or strategy to use with almost 0% risk (the principal risk is the infrastructure or evasion or token crash but those are systematically avoidable with current or on-going projects as we know who operate them (even this is still possible)
And in theory, you could earn from:
Locked GTC 1,725,000 = 4 trimester at 431,250 GTC
Interest ~ 3%-5.5% =
3.5% = 51,318$ potential gain from LP
5.5% = 80,643.75$ potential gain
You could do 6-12 months, out of 1/4 of total GTC and still being able to supply public goods during the next 24 months easy.
Itās simply an idea but this could be interesting at the same to stabilize GTC price, as many frens will lock theirs as well.
For me, Gitcoin is Gripcoin token multiplier and Kevin is the imperator of public goodsā¦ We could also do a second round of capital raising, I can probably help and lead the path in this direction.
I personally donāt know enough Allo protocol to give my opinion on that part, but Iāve seen lately a vigorous energy coming out of many teams working toward delivering social capital impact.
Just throwing my 2 cents.
Have a great evening!
As a citizen and delegate through stewardship of the Gitcoin Community, I support this forward looking mechanism on securing the future of what will provide the highest level of value back to the overall community.
Thanks @owocki for this thoughtful and insightful view into what the future of Gitcoin could be during this next cycle of development, innovation, and building.
Iād like to get a better understanding of what a ācitizenā is now. Seems like the definition has shifted from individuals consistently showing up to create value for Gitcoin in places where core is unable or unwilling to, to subcontractor teams that donāt actively participate in the community.
Gitcoin has lost its community and pushed out all the contributors that had genuine connections to that community. This is becoming more and more evident with the lack of participation in the forum, on socials and voting. I understand the shift from DAO to b2b dev studio with a minimum viable dao wrapper. It might be time to rip off the band aid and make a full on move to tokenized b2b company looking to oursource work to studios and moving away from the āDAO of DAOsā lore.
I recall the Citizens rounds being launched in response to people like @jon-spark-eco and many others rolling up our sleeves and doing the work that core team members were ignoring, specifically BD, community building and providing support to other newcomers. No one asked them to do this or compensated them. They did it out of alignment, passion and love for Gitcoin.
Contributors above @Decentralizedceo, @PaulBurg @knome7337 @MonicaTalan @CryptoReuMD are not aware that they are now ineligible for the GTC Citizens fund or have become second class citizen behind the teams that donāt show up consistently for Gitcoin (one off builds). Clarifying this might help them decide if itās worth spending the time and effort in the Gitcoin ecosystem or move on to greener pastures.
Suggestion:
Clarify who is a citizen and where their contribution types rank in the new b2b direction.
Reach out to the teams listed above and inquire what it would take for them to become live players opposed to subcontractors.
Adopt the Foundation Grants format used at Optimism.
FWIW, here is the place where Citizenship was defined in the previous era.
Not sure @MathildaDV plans to keep this up to date or launch a new resource for citizens/new definition for citizens. This post is the latest source of truth on citizens strategy so if you have comments perhaps start there, or reach out to her.
This does not match my conception of where things are headed. My latest response on Gitcoin DAO Topology - #10 by owocki is how I think things are evolving.
Can you say more about what you like about Grants format at Optimism?
I will respond to these comments in one fell swoop.
Reading between the lines, it seems like there is some resentment/pushback towards the way things were vs where theyāre headed. I appreciate you being willing to speak up Carlos. Not everyone would take/care the time to do that.
A few takes below. As you read, pls keep in mind I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, none of this is financial advice, just provide my perspective.
Here goes:
I think that its fair that as things evolve forward, its fair for people to move on with their lives. For some people, that will mean disengaging with Gitcoin. For some itll mean staying active as an alumni. Likewise, as Gitcoin evolves, its itās perogative to shift the strategy and where it spends money. Both sides can be thoughtful/respectful as these transitions happen.
Iāve met many of the ppl youāve tagged and appreciate their contributions to Gitcoin.
When I hang out with ppl from the 2021-2023 era of Gitcoin, I hear nostalga for how much of a vibe things were those days. Its true, 2021-2023 was a vibe. We created a schelling point for regen web3 and lots of good things came from that. But I also want to share how stressful that time was from the perspective of Gitcoin (which as the founder, I try to think of things from the perspective of the project/brand, from time to time). Gitcoin was spending $1m/mo and not shipping any product that had product market fit. For much of this time it was still using cGrants (a product that me/team painstakingly built from nothing on $50k-$100k/mo the previous cycle). During the same time, we saw the rise of Giveth/Protocol Guild/Optimism and other projects that were doing more funding than Gitcoin (and on 1/10th - 1/100th of the cost!). This was just not sustainable nor desirable imo!
With the exception a couple ppl who IMO borderline-defrauded Gitcoin, I donāt think the situation in (3) was anyones fault. The DAO coordination model of 2021-2023 did not work for creating something systemically important for the world OR creating longevity for Gitcoin (though I am proud of the contributions made to regen web3 during this time, and many relationships built which will become part of the backbone of many regen web3 impact networks in the future). My biggest regret is that Gitcoin Holdings inc. didnt just leanly build Allo protocol in a centralized way in 2021 + then gift it to the DAO. Hindsight is 20/20.
It would suffice to say that Gitcoin was in a downward spiral coming out of 2021-2023. We tried the whole āpure decentralization asapā thing and it didnt work, now were back on the path of progressive decentralization and progressive market recovery. IMO the work youāre seeing now is part of significant efforts to create upward spirals in and around Gitcoin. What does this upward spiral look like? IMO its
IMO things that are not as important rn (which doesnt mean they are unimportant, it just means they are trailing indicators or secondary in importance to the above imo):
Is any of this going to work? I cant promise the answer is yes. But I think were going to give it a strong try, something we can be proud of.
You can follow along on the progress on the GTC goal trackerā¦
Sharing a comment I received from a friend who is a prominent DEFI founder during ethcc. Which I think is a small validation of the new mult-mechanism/protocol-first strategy.
It seems like it might be valuable to clear the air with some of the past citizens as the new strategy becomes defined. I also think its important to engage the citizens about the future. Open to doing a twitter spaces, zoom call, or just continuing to go back and forth here. Will follow your lead @carlosjmelgar !
Thanks for the tag friend, you really touch a great point. Sometimes, because my lifestyle and family driving motive, iām not aware of spends and timing that some folks make inside crypto, and thatās why iāve misunderstood the way of things happen. Iām writing this in a privileged stand. Let me explain a little more about this approach:
-In my early days of crypto ivāe studied more about economics, tokens and DeFi ecosystemās, and how to they work, and how do they going to change the world, but this type of approach was for me, unsustainable becase i really didnāt feel quite comfortable of the ideas of āfor profitā and this type of organization. Why? Becase i have a stable job and a paycheck every quarter. Everyone that was there, was looking to make more money, to make more work to get deeper in the āStatus Trapā.
-Then i pivoted to Web3, ReGen and Public Goods, in my early days in 2022, and thats how iāve knew about DAOs, Gitcoin, Giveth, Octant, Nouns, that make me feel like home, granting, crowdfunding, conviction voting, the real good web3 vibes and how to stop Moloch traps and make a meaningful challenge. All of this applications are intended to help and move the needle to the ecosystem and just a little to real and convicted users. I made comments as my feelings in opposition of being paid for governance, and for decision making like de Optimism and Arbitrum delegates, like a salary or work, at least for the project, but how iāve said, i have a stable life and work.
-Now after 4 years in crypto, im not feeling like a real OG, as all of you, but i can understand why this retro funding and citizen retro were implemented, for people like me that are more convinced to stay and work for the good vibes, the good initiatives and the people that also teach us about public goods, becase in the near future or i donāt know, someday you are going to be compensated for all you past effort. I donāt want to sound like interested in always been remunerated or paid, but at least recognized.
-After this words i get to your point, leaving behind the contributors that are here because they feel comfortable and happy, are going to leave, one by one because they are going to feel tired or burnout, so maybe we can think a little more on how you can continue working with this really encouraged citizens and avoid loosing hands in the evolution of the protocol. As Carlos said before, we are seeing less participation and interest in all the forums, maybe the community itās tired, or disincentivized because we are not being touched as community.
-We donāt want to be a zero-sum game for Gitcoin, but iām really interested on continuing helping to build the rails of this project because i admire a lot of people that started and worked here, and i believe in the ethos of what Gitcoin is actually, avoiding the Nostalgia of what all crypto was some years ago, and iām really sure that we all understand that if we are not devs in some way we are not making big waves, this exact thing happened in Arbitrum, Gitcoin, Starkent, but we are still here, and continue using the apps that the devs are going to build and teach the people how to use them.
Best
Well, itās partially true, as many user left, either before, during, or after bear market, while otherās left for various reasons.
I, unfortunately did not found any other place, as much welcoming as Gitcoin, or most frens around, literally. Reorganization was clearly necessary, since maintaining a platform where you funds multiple project, aiming to diversify the meaning of social impact and capital, is a heck of a mission.
We did not realize at first how hard it was, to generate a revenue, while funding exponentially public goods. Even with having this in mind, the amount donated, 1. to the community 2. to the people involved worth probably a 10x in my opinion as in my case, my network is my ānetworkā
Think about it, even with conviction, you have to either close and stop everything, or reduce total spending and review the average amount total cost of the full package.
After many try from my part, I understood how raising or trying to raise funds, even with a team, require more than just positive energy.
The people who worked during the last 24 months (my participation was not much, but I was still around) to keep GitcoinDAO alive, are still around and most of them, engage with a shared goal or similarities.
Micro-services, B2B, User to Business, shared resources or features, is for me, much better in many case than self services, still, you can benefits from both in any case since partnership is open-access.
So, I am not too sure of what you are referring to.
Thanks for your feedback, Carlos. Always appreciate citizensā perspectives and I would love to work on creating more clarity for all.
I think that clarification might be useful here as there seems to be a bit of confusion about who is still eligible for funding through this new strategy. I know that Izzy will definitely still be eligible, as one example, for what heās got in the pipeline. As outlined in the updated strategy, this is what we are focusing on moving forward:
IMO the āmiscellaneousā category within the Retro is where we could do a better job at specifying more clearly what that includes.
We are becoming more focused and intentional in this strategy, which is important for the direction that Gitcoin is moving in atm.
I will be setting up an Office Hours for anyone to ask questions or gain further understanding on these details. I think itās very important to continue to listen to our community and provide clear funnels of feedback and collaborative spaces. And as outlined in the strategy, we will be hosting regular retrospectives (internally & externally) to continue to evolve and make sure we take the community along with us.
And I echo all that @owocki has said in his reply.
I would also recommend if you have specific feedback on the strategy, comment on the strategy post. Could it be adjusted slightly? Maybe, yes! Feedback always welcome. Iāll be posting details for the Office Hours this week, and I would love for that to be an open discussion for anyone to bring their thoughts/concerns/reflections.
This is a great proposal and makes a lot of sense (if the allocation is done well).
Weāve been compiling a framework for different strategies which might be useful Web3 Ecosystem Development
And the strategy we have been converging towards as most powerful: Business Clusters as a Strategy for Web3 Ecosystems
If this resonates, weād love to explore more with the Gitcoin community whether we can collaborate on it!
Iām late to weigh in on the forum, though have chatted with @owocki about this over the past few months. I will vote in favor of earmarking the funds though will be much more circumspect about voting for any release of these funds.
For starters: I very strongly support funding projects that increase the value of Gitcoinās ecosystem. As the leader of Grants Lab, I want that organization to be one of many future contributors to Gitcoin.
That said, I also want to raise our standards across Gitcoin (including Grants Labs) for the type of work that gets funded and the accountability and quality of work delivered. In earmarking these funds, I want to make sure that we are also pledging to:
I donāt fully support the proposal. Based on what iāve learnt in arbitrum, the way to build a decentralized community isnāt transferring a chunk of funds for the next 4 years but instead creating a culture where contributors can permissionlessly make their own proposals to the DAO.
For example, @noahchonlee wanted to do credit card integration in rounds. He was turned down by the team. He should have been encouraged to directly move to snapshot for a vote, the discussion, awareness and engagement that provokes is sometimes as valuable as the actual funding request.
On a sidenote, Iām also not a fan of using memes for budgets. 6.9 million, 4.2 years - i understand we work in ballparks but iād like a little more thought into these numbers. i also donāt think giving a large amount to a person for gatekeeping its allocation will result in citizen engagement, i hope to be proven wrong though
