[TEMP CHECK] 6.9m GTC Citizens Fund

[owocki]

TLDR

I propose that we earmark* 6.9m GTC to go to Gitcoin Citizens rounds for the next 4.20 years. These tokens will be deployed on Allo to build the Allo ecosystem, building an upward spiral of innovation around Gitcoin.

*earmark = social understanding that this amount of tokens will go to Citizens. Future proposals will be submitted with specifics about how they will be allocated.

[TEMP CHECK] 6.9m GTC Citizens Fund

My fellow Gitcoin Citizens,

We have come a long way over the past 3 years, and once again, Gitcoin sits at an important juncture.

We have had some limited success with our current operating model and momentum. Notably, almost $5m in GMV in 2024 [source]. I want to thank everyone who has supported that success so far. At the same time, I want to recognize that what got us here will not get us there.

Where is “there”?

That opportunity ahead of is capital allocation, starting with grants. As the EVM eats the world, $trillions will become tokenized. This will create enormous opportunities for Gitcoin to deploy flavors of Quadratic Funding, Retroactive Funding, and other capital allocation strategies to everyday communities. A core human need in the 21st century is Funding What Matters. The TAM for this is all of humanity.

The moment is now. As more & more communities go onchain in the coming decade, we will upgrade the way these communities coordinate. We will empower them to allocate capital in a more scalable, precise, decentralized, and effective manner. This will enable them to work together bottoms-up to address 2030-era coordination failures.

TLDR - We want to be the Allocation layer of the post-tokenization internet.

I believe that this trillion $$$ opportunity can not be attained with the current operating model, which relies too heavily on Grants Lab. Grants Lab is doing a good job, but I think that by activating the power of citizens, Gitcoin (including Grants Lab AND citizens) can do a great job. There is asymmetric upside in disrupting our operating current model and seizing the enormously wide opportunity ahead.

How do we do this?

If you’ve read my latest book, the “Exploring the design space” section, you know that I am bullish on relying on the broader Ethereum community to explore the design space with us. The community is bubbling with talent, gumption, and ambition to build cool funding tools.

We have not yet activated this community at any meaningful scale yet.

But there are glimmers of activation. Just look at all of the innovation we’ve gotten by partnering with talent builders!

(Note GMV = Gross Marketplace Value, basically how much $$$ went through that tool?)

	Who built it?	Cost to Gitcoin	2024 GMV so far (projected)	GMV/$ Spent
Trad QF on Grants Stack	Grants Lab	$20m	$3.6m ($6m)	$0.92
EasyRetroPGF	Owocki + Carl + OP Grant	$200k	$2m ($6m)	$25
REDACTED	Raid Guild	$130k	$0m ($100m)	$1000
Streaming QF	Geoweb/Superfluid	$0	$100k ($100k)	∞
MACI QF	Nick/MACI team	$100k	$0m ($2m)	$10
Endaoment QF	Endaoment	$0	$29k	∞
Grants Ships	Dao Masons	$0	$100k	∞
Conviction Voting	1Hive	$0	$???	∞??

Wow! It seems to me that many great builds are happening on Allo outside of Grants Lab.

This is a meaningful insight.

And a window of opportunity.

We have discovered something extremely important/meaningful for Gitcoin & its mission and attainment of the trillion $$ market opportunity we see ahead of us…

We’ve learned to empower external builders with Allo, instead of just building on Allo ourselves. By doing so we can capture more GMV + explore a broader set of use cases with higher ROI. I mean just look at the GMV/$$$ metric (a measure of how much gitcoin spent in $$$ to develop a product vs how much GMV, Gross Marketplace Value, its generated).

1. Trad Grants Stack QF = 0.92 GMV/$
2. EasyRetroPGF = $25 GMV/$
3. REDACTED = $1000 GMV/$ *potential GMV

I think we should scale the lessons that got us here. I propose we update how Gitcoin allocates capital. I think that

1. Grants Lab should double down triple down on empowering Gitcoin Citizens to build on Allo.
2. Starting now + until Devcon/Ethdenver, Grants Lab focuses primarily on building developer tools that the developers (both internal + external) love.
3. At Devcon, we announce
   1. 6.9M in funding from GitcoinDAO has been earmarked towards Allo/Citizens Builds. If ratified, an open community-driven Allo/Grants Ships round to be run to determine how to allocate it.
   2. AlloKit, Allo 2.1, and other various dev tools, to enable builders to build dApps that Fund What Matters.

Why do this?

1. Because Gitcoin needs to become (a) more successful in the market + (b) more DAO-like.
2. This direction is already proven at small scales + therefore significantly derisked (just look at the chart above).
3. Gitcoin has 24.5m GTC and ~50(ish) months left of runway at current market levels. Our data above shows that the rest of the GTC should be spent WAY MORE on Citizens. This is a test of that direction. And a disruption of the current implicit status quo of that $$ being earmarked for Grants Lab.
4. This is a true pilot for creation of the Gitcoin Citizens Value Flows.

Implementation Details

1. [Grants Lab] Allo Kit, Allo 2.1 to be built by Grants Lab before Devcon
2. [Grants Lab] Grants Lab leaders are rebuilding the Grants Lab product organization after the move to multi-mechanism (and the move from Grants Stack to Allokit + similar tools) created some talent turnover.
3. [DAO] Kevin + other Gitcoin stewards to explore how to create long term economic partnerships with Allo builders.
4. [DAO] We ALL become live players + build Gitcoin 2.2 together.
5. [Foundation] Mathilda is currently stewarding Gitcoin Citizens. We all need to rally around & empower her to be successful in navigating forward! Starting here.

Vote

1. Earmark 6.9M to GTC Citizens
2. Do Not Earmark 6.9M to GTC Cititzens
3. Abstain

Feedback welcome!

Comment below.

Here is some feedback I’ve gotten so far from sharing this post while it was in draft mode.

I think well want to see these things solved BEFORE actually letting much of these earmarked funds actually start to flow. And we should scale funding with our ability to solve these problems. Each stepwise increase in solved problem should equal a stepwise increase in funding! (eg We should gain confidence in these progressively as progressively more funds start to flow. )

1. validate allokit + the allo stack - to make sure they are good to build on first, before we add token incentives to build on it.
   • imo the north star here is “what would have to be true for a medium-skill-level hackathon developer to get up and running on allo in < 3 mins? and productive in < 30 mins?”
2. validate citizens rounds. - how that citizens can be held to high standards in citizens rounds?
   • how can they be accountable to generating value for gitcoin? how can gitcoin compete with other incentive programs out there for talent/attention?
3. create alignment- we might want to partially lockup some of these payouts to create longer term alignment between gitcoin/the citizens. long term (3,3s) create Upward Spirals

(thanks @meglister for gibbing me this feedback. feedback is a gift!)

[Sov]

I support this proposal and appreciate you surfacing.

If passed, I’m excited to help grow adoption of these new approaches through BD/Partnerships. As we engage with more partners in designing their grant rounds, I look forward to incorporating these tools and approaches into our standard approach to program design and implementation.

[CryptoReuMD]

I support this proposal.
Incredible approach. I think that the best ideas came from the community and are driven by the community itself. Self sustainability needs to be addressed for the near future and i think that we need to also have a conversation about transparency and grant reporting, impact making.
And i have a little doubt about PGN network. Does shits budget needs to also be updated here or im a little confused.
Best

[MonicaTalan]

I also support this proposal and agree with @CryptoReuMD about the best ideas coming from the community. Also agree that there should be a way to measure impact and making Citizens accountable. Locking up some payouts to create longer term alignment seems also like a good approach - it does move Citizens from retroactive model. Will Citizens include a retroactive model? Will it only be one par of how you measure Citizen engagement?

[mars]

@MonicaTalan

Will Citizens include a retroactive model?

I hope so… EDIT / UPDATE: more info updated citizens program strategy

I’ll keep helping and pretty sure I’ll get some “cashback” from retro funding rounds, I’m 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.

[MathildaDV]

@MonicaTalan

Will Citizens include a retroactive model?

Take a peek at the updated citizens program strategy here to gain a full understanding of how it’ll move forward.

[M0nkeyFl0wer]

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.

[knome7337]

Community first - and steps in a promising direction.

[KarlaGod]

Knowing how we’ve 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 it’d reduce the time it takes between implementation and impact.

Thanks for proposing this Owocki.

Also, did you mean ‘here’ to replace the there?

[PaulBurg]

I like it. We have some experience with running rounds on Allo and therefore some ideas to try

I’m for

[owocki]

@KarlaGod

Also, did you mean ‘here’ to replace the there?

woops i got that wrong. fixed now!

[Decentralizedceo]

I also fully support this proposal and looking forward to the execution when passed!

[Sirlupinwatson]

Hi Kevin, hope you are doing well!

I’ve 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 around…

Average is 431 250 GTC, and it’s a really decent amount to distribute within the community for each trimester + quadratic funding and partner funds cheers!

I’m simply astonish that, it’s still alive and the threshold is at 50ish months…

(I don’t 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 let’s 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.
It’s 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 goods… We could also do a second round of capital raising, I can probably help and lead the path in this direction.
I personally don’t know enough Allo protocol to give my opinion on that part, but I’ve 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!

[KMLLC]

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.

[carlosjmelgar]

I’d like to get a better understanding of what a “citizen” 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 don’t 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 “DAO of DAOs” 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 don’t show up consistently for Gitcoin (one off builds). Clarifying this might help them decide if it’s 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.

[owocki]

@carlosjmelgar

I’d like to get a better understanding of what a “citizen” is now.

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.

---

@carlosjmelgar

I understand the shift from DAO to b2b dev studio with a minimum viable dao wrapper.

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.

---

@carlosjmelgar

• Adopt the Foundation Grants format used at Optimism.

Can you say more about what you like about Grants format at Optimism?

---

@carlosjmelgar

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.

@carlosjmelgar

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 don’t actively participate in the community.

@carlosjmelgar

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 don’t show up consistently for Gitcoin (one off builds). Clarifying this might help them decide if it’s worth spending the time and effort in the Gitcoin ecosystem or move on to greener pastures.

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 they’re 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:

1. 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 it’s perogative to shift the strategy and where it spends money. Both sides can be thoughtful/respectful as these transitions happen.

2. I’ve met many of the ppl you’ve tagged and appreciate their contributions to Gitcoin.

3. 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!

4. With the exception a couple ppl who IMO borderline-defrauded Gitcoin, I don’t 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.

5. It would suffice to say that Gitcoin was in a downward spiral coming out of 2021-2023. We tried the whole “pure decentralization asap” thing and it didnt work, now were back on the path of progressive decentralization and progressive market recovery. IMO the work you’re seeing now is part of significant efforts to create upward spirals in and around Gitcoin. What does this upward spiral look like? IMO its

• Allo protocol adoption
• Gitcoin going multi-mechanism as defined in allobook
• Re-engagement from citizens around the most important value-add levers
• hopefully, one day, financial sustainability

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):

1. “lack of participation in the forum, on socials and voting” (these arent unimportant! but they are secondary in importance to the things above.)
2. everyone who WAS part of gitcoin in the past wants to be active again (its fine for ppl to move on with their careers/interests. tho one day i would like to see an alumni network/telegram built)
3. the vibes (not that vibes are unimportant. but they are a trailing indicator to the things above)

---

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 tracker…

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 !

[CryptoReuMD]

Thanks for the tag friend, you really touch a great point. Sometimes, because my lifestyle and family driving motive, i’m not aware of spends and timing that some folks make inside crypto, and that’s why i’ve misunderstood the way of things happen. I’m writing this in a privileged stand. Let me explain a little more about this approach:
-In my early days of crypto iv’e studied more about economics, tokens and DeFi ecosystem’s, 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 didn’t feel quite comfortable of the ideas of “for profit” 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 “Status Trap”.
-Then i pivoted to Web3, ReGen and Public Goods, in my early days in 2022, and thats how i’ve 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 i’ve 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 don’t know, someday you are going to be compensated for all you past effort. I don’t 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 it’s tired, or disincentivized because we are not being touched as community.
-We don’t want to be a zero-sum game for Gitcoin, but i’m 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 i’m 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

[free2ride19]

Nice one hopefully we get acquainted to more info on the allo protocol.
@free2ride19

[Sirlupinwatson]

@carlosjmelgar

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.

Well, it’s partially true, as many user left, either before, during, or after bear market, while other’s 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 “network”

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.

[MathildaDV]

Thanks for your feedback, Carlos. Always appreciate citizens’ perspectives and I would love to work on creating more clarity for all.

@carlosjmelgar

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 don’t show up consistently for Gitcoin (one off builds). Clarifying this might help them decide if it’s worth spending the time and effort in the Gitcoin ecosystem or move on to greener pastures.

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 he’s got in the pipeline. As outlined in the updated strategy, this is what we are focusing on moving forward:

IMO the “miscellaneous” 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 it’s 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. I’ll 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.