As Gitcoin evolves into the 3.0 era, I am considering establishing an Investment Committee that can strategically invest in apps and infrastructure Gitcoin itself uses. The idea is to align our treasury with ventures that directly strengthen our ecosystem, while also creating upside for Gitcoin’s long-term sustainability.
Initial Structure
Budget: 500k GTC earmarked for GG24 (future rounds TBD based on outcomes).
Committee: Top 3–5 Gitcoin Stewards (or their chosen delegates).
Criteria:
Founding team we deeply believe in.
Clear venture-scale path (defined as ≥10x upside for Gitcoin) including hair on fire problems, network effects, founder we believe will stick with it, intent to tokenize.
Demonstrated direct relevance to Gitcoin’s mission and stack.
Strategic Positioning
We already know a priori that capital allocation and crowdfunding apps are going to be a major wave in Ethereum, but we don’t know when (yet).
Gitcoin is uniquely positioned to serve as both the curator of that deal flow and the incubator of that wave.
By backing the right projects early, Gitcoin can shape the ecosystem’s trajectory, attract aligned founders to build alongside us, and eventually package this growing market for traditional capital (Wall Street, family offices, VCs) as the sector matures.
This could generate 1x - 1100x upside in some cases if we’re lucky/good ( Gitcoin Grants 1.0 itself is proof of this, having started at 0 in 2018 and growing into a unicorn over the next 5 years )
Potential Upsides
Financial Sustainability: Potential to turn treasury assets into growth capital, helping Gitcoin become more self-sustaining.
Ecosystem Synergy: We back projects we actually use, creating tighter integration and network effects.
More funding for the most highest upside projects - Aside from just fair fees, this is a way we can fund the Gitcoin ecosystem.
More signal about the highest upside projects. By making allocation decisions about these apps we will build the muscle for finding them and co-creating them together.
Talent & Innovation Magnet: Signals that Gitcoin is not just a grants allocator, but a patron of the best new apps in Ethereum/Web3 infra.
Governance Alignment: Stewards already immersed in Gitcoin’s mission guide capital toward aligned builders.
Potential Downsides
Conflict of Interest: Blurry lines between being a funder, a customer, and an investor could raise questions of fairness.
Execution Risk: Venture investing is high-risk and could result in treasury losses if not managed carefully (or if were unlucky).
Focus Dilution: Running an investment committee may distract Gitcoin from its core grant-funding mission.
Governance Pressure: Community may question whether investment decisions reflect collective will or steward preferences
Legal Structure: Need to research how to structure so compliant.
Next Step
This post is a temp check to gauge whether the community supports exploring such an investment committee for GG24. Feedback will shape whether we proceed with a more formal proposal, including safeguards to minimize conflicts of interest and maximize Gitcoin’s upside.
As an example, taking the tokens from Updraft (UPD) and putting them in a treasury does nothing to further the project. They need to be deployed on the platform to fund Ideas.
Based on my current expertise, experience and knowledge in those specifics fields, I could plan, design and build this system for the entire stack divided in 5 section;
Root or core team and engine
HR-admin tooling and report (including user persona, allowances and resources allocation)
Execution and system-dev-ops (a real-time gant diagram or system with various styles so it ease the coordination just like using notion or any other tools)
Automated system (alerts, reports, SoC~2.5, AgentX && GemX )
You can split this into 4 to 5 distinctive fields, and unite them into a consolidated tool, where you maximally optimize the infrastructure cost, while you maintain the coordination at the highest level, which is in this case a root issue since I’ve been here and I’ve done that, so.
I’m writing this “live” and so this isn’t a proposal but an introduction;
1 or 2 months for the delivery, max
fully operational in 1 to 3 months
expected saving cost and roi; to be determined… but this should be it, this is where your 5x to 20x sit
Please let me know if you want to learn more about it
… I don’t believe this is an experiment, since we should clearly know what’s needed, and so there is no need for further experiment in that “domain” specifically
whatever the fault is with holding tokens we expect to hold or increase in value, IMO it is way worse for treasury longevity to just give money away. and gitcoin’s treasury value over time shows it.
I’m bullish on an investment committee, but I think we need to approach it more strategically with clearer criteria, mechanisms, and accountability. Would love to work on the following to move this into an actionable strategy:
Source of Funds
Is this coming from the treasury, matching pool, or another earmarked pool?
Selection & Diligence Process
Will there be a structured diligence funnel (e.g. sourcing, scoring, consensus) or is this just a Snapshot vote among stewards? Strong investment should require consistent criteria — we should define it.
Legal/Structural Compliance
This is flagged but unresolved. Without a clear legal wrapper or compliance framework, we could be exposing ourselves to unknown liability.
Treasury Risk Management
Is this 500k a capped pilot or is there a follow-on commitment?
Success Metrics
What does success look like? What are the KPI’s we’re wanting to drive?
Once we can answer these, I’m supportive of ratifying a v1 of this. But without those foundations, this feels more like intuition than strategy – which is important to shift if we’re focused on treasury longevity!
If you’re saying we need to keep a buffer in the treasury to keep Gitcoin running, yes, and if you’re saying we can diversify into tokens of other projects we believe in, OK, I can understand.
This is still somewhat of a paradox
because holding a token is–in a way–the opposite of using it, and my preference is to spend more on grants to aligned projects than on buying and holding their tokens.
I’d rather have funds come from donations rather than investments both for us and for them.
It’s really important to me to fund things (including Gitcoin itself) that may not have a business model.
Oh, and I just assumed these tokens would be locked away and not used, but if we’re using tokens–voting on proposals in other DAOs, or supporting ideas or solutions on Updraft, etc, then my opinion flips 180 degrees, but that requires an active fund management team (which I would totally support).
My view is that Gitcoin should position itself as a follow-on funder, not a lead investor. It should rely on full-time investors to run due diligence. Beyond cultivating strong builder connections, Gitcoin would benefit from cultivating a network of friendly investors it can partner with for deal flow and larger check sizes.
)
