TEMP CHECK – How Many Domains Should GG24 Include?
As we move toward GG24, one of the central design questions is: How many domains should we run?
The program strategy doc currently points to 4–6 domains, while sensemaking has surfaced 2 dozen+ credible proposals. I want to open this conversation transparently and hear the community’s views. I come into this with an open mind.
The Case for Fewer Domains (4–6)
- Clarity & Focus – Launching a major structural shift (multi-mechanism, multi-domain) is already a lot for the community to process. A smaller set of domains makes the change easier to explain, market, and coordinate.
- Information Bandwidth – The average participant cannot meaningfully track 8+ new domains at once. Fewer domains means deeper engagement and less cognitive overload.
- Quality Over Quantity – Limiting scope could raise the bar for proposals and ensure higher execution quality per domain.
- Operational Efficiency – Gitcoin program ops and marketing resources are finite. Concentrating them on a smaller set of domains increases the chance of success.
- Precedent – Other orgs (e.g. ARIA in the UK) focus attention on a few “opportunity spaces” at a time, making the prioritization legible without diminishing the importance of other areas.
The Case for More Domains (8–12+)
- Innovation Surface Area – Ethereum has many urgent problems (AI, privacy, open data, DeFi transparency, etc.). Running more domains means more experimentation and more shots on goal.
- Inclusivity & Legitimacy – Restricting to 4–6 could create disillusionment among operators whose proposals are set aside. More domains broadens participation and builds legitimacy.
- Network Effects – Each domain brings in its own funders, operators, and communities. More domains = more total capital, partnerships, and talent in the Gitcoin ecosystem.
- Flexible Funding – Even if Gitcoin commits $1.3M, domains can bring their own co-funding. With operator hustle, 10–12 domains could still be meaningfully resourced. Especially if we are lucky/good at bringing in outside funding.
- Decentralization – Letting GTC stewards decide which domains to fund (without an artificial cap) better reflects our goal of moving toward a network-driven allocation model.
Where Do We Land?
This is the tradeoff:
- Fewer domains = more clarity, focus, and controlled rollout.
- More domains = more innovation, inclusivity, and legitimacy.
I don’t have a fixed view here, my view has been evolving over time. My ask: let’s surface arguments, tradeoffs, and data points now so stewards can make an informed call before the Snapshot vote.
Discussion Questions
- Should Gitcoin constrain the number of domains to 4–6, or let the stewards decide based on proposal quality?
- How should we weigh clarity/marketing vs. inclusivity/innovation?
- Could merged/clustered domains give us the best of both worlds?
Looking forward to the conversation.