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.
Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views, not a decision or commitment by Gitcoin governance. Forward-looking items in it are targets, not commitments. The information in these posts is subject to change as we continue learning. This post may contain estimates, may contain errors, and is provided on a best-effort basis. DYOR, do not make any financial decisions based on these posts.