[temp check] transitionary stewards cohort

owocki · July 14, 2026, 9:06pm

[temp check] transitionary stewards cohort

a temp check for gov.gitcoin.co. nothing here is decided. reactions, objections, and referrals wanted before anything goes to a vote.

tl;dr

gitcoin is transitioning to its next form. the 3.0 team shouldn’t grade its own homework
proposal: a small, paid cohort of stewards (aug 2026 through august 2027, ~3 hours a month) to steward the transition, with payments tranched as a recurring leash on the 3.0 team
stipend paid and disclosed, amount tbd. no names yet, criteria below
also floating: a trust graph to programmatically disperse owocki’s delegated voting power over time

why

gitcoin is in transition. the 2026 strategy post laid out the reset; the q2 2026 budget report shows where we stand. the next chapter points beyond ethereum-native grants toward funding real life, locally. a transition this big should not be stewarded by the 3.0 team grading its own homework.

so we’re reviving stewardship, in a form fit for what gitcoin is now: small, paid, high trust, time boxed.

the shape

name: transitionary stewards cohort
charter: steward gitcoin’s transition from what it is to what it could be, and keep the 3.0 team honest while we do it
term: august 2026 through august 2027
time commitment: 1.5 hours a month on a call, 1.5 hours a month async. deliberately light. we want judgment, not labor

compensation

a flat stipend per steward for the full term. amount and denomination tbd, fixed before invitations go out
unconditional. not tied to how they vote, what they conclude, or whether they agree with us
stewards recuse on any vote touching their own compensation
disclosed here, on purpose. stewarding a transition is real work and we’d rather pay for it transparently than rely on favors
paid in tranches over the term rather than up front

accountability cuts both ways

steward and budget payments release in tranches, roughly quarterly through the end of term. that gives the cohort (and the community) a recurring leash on the 3.0 team: if the work isn’t landing, the next tranche is the natural checkpoint to say so. the first vote covers only the first tranche.

who we’re looking for

we’re not naming names yet. the criteria:

people who understand the old world and the new: they lived gitcoin’s ethereum-native era and can reason about what comes next
people we trust to have a good faith, constructive conversation about a hard transition
people whose presence adds legitimacy to the process rather than borrowing from it

the cohort’s first act will be to refer others who fit these criteria, and to propose improvements to the process itself. if that’s you or someone you know, comment below.

an idea we’re floating: a trust graph for delegation

longer term, we’re exploring a trust graph so steward selection outgrows the founder’s list. the mechanism: stewards and community members express trust, the graph aggregates it, and delegation updates programmatically over time. it would be seeded with the gtc voting power currently delegated to owocki (no tokens change hands), with the explicit goal of dispersing that voting power away from the founder as the graph matures. early thinking, feedback wanted.

first agenda

the cohort’s first call opens with a gtc retrospective: promises made and promises kept, wins and losses, what’s next. we’ll publish the output here on the forum.

from there, the work is the transition itself.

the temp check

before this goes anywhere near a vote, tell me:

where does legitimacy during this transitionary period come from, to you?
is this the right shape? (size, term, time commitment, charter)
is paid stewardship the right call, and what should the stipend look like?
who fits the criteria above? name them below or dm me.
does the trust graph direction excite or worry you? why?

owocki

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.

MathildaDV · July 15, 2026, 5:01pm

Couple of thoughts here. I appreciate the effort being made here to revitalize a steward program as well as inviting trusted members to be apart of the cohort.

On compensation: having been part of coordinating our paid delegate program in the past, I would be very explicit around expectations we may have of the cohort. For anyone to have enough context on our direction, we’d need to plug them into the right rooms at the correct cadence which takes up people’s time. I’ve personally had pushback before on how we structured compensation of this in the past, so I’d be curious what would make it worth everyone’s time. From my learnings, we have to clearly state the outcomes we’re trying to drive, and be explicit about any boundaries around feedback/input/oversight or how empowered they’d feel to have directional input.

Either way, I think it’s of high value to get interested parties in a room together where we can highlight the transition in a more robust manner and answer questions and concerns in real time. I’m eager to facilitate these conversations. Legitimacy for me comes from two places: independence from the internal team (which includes me, so I’d want the cohort shaped by more than just us), and representation that reaches beyond the people who were in the room in 2021. Those who have some insight into our new direction is important.

On term: I’d start with until the end of 2026 first, and then revisit it EOY to gauge how valuable the cohort is and if it has produced the outcomes we set out at the beginning.

Trust graph is an interesting concept. I understand that it’s a path towards eventually moving into a much more community-driven model. I’m excited to get feedback on it and see how it shapes out over time.

One question I have is who would select this first cohort? And how is that decision being made?

ccerv1 · July 15, 2026, 10:03pm

A few thoughts:

Where does legitimacy during this transition come from?

I think it comes from people with enough context and history to understand what made Gitcoin distinctive but enough independence to see what the current team may be missing. I would look for people whose judgment you trust to cover blind spots and help the transition move faster. Not people whose names lend credibility to decisions already made.

Is this the right shape?

Shape seems reasonable. My concern is more about how the cohort will actually be engaged.

At 3 hours/month, I don’t think you should expect stewards to know when their involvement could be most valuable. The 3.0 team needs to create the pull: bring them concrete decisions and hard questions early enough for their judgment to matter. I don’t think you want this to become a periodic update call.

Is paid stewardship the right call?

Maybe, although this seems like a particularly good candidate for some form of retro reward. It may be difficult to specify in advance what valuable stewardship looks like during a transition like this, but it should be relatively obvious in retrospect what work added meaningful judgment, accountability or momentum.

I could imagine a small fixed stipend that recognizes the real time commitment and a separate retroactive pool for contributions that proved especially valuable. That would avoid making compensation contingent on agreement while still recognizing that participation and impact are not necessarily the same thing.

Does the trust graph direction excite or worry me?

It’s interesting, but it doesn’t feel like a precondition for this phase. The immediate problem is assembling a small group of trusted people who can help Gitcoin navigate the transition well. A credible trust graph might be an output of doing that successfully through March 2027.

owocki · July 21, 2026, 4:13pm

how i want to show up to the transitionary stewards

did a bit of writing about how i intend to show up to the transitionary stewards. my goals:

healed. 8 years in, plenty of scar tissue. it shows up as pattern recognition, and if you ever see me defending instead of looking, call it.
oriented to reality. we ran the 2026 bets honestly: grants stack and allo wound down, whats left survived contact with reality. my goal is to carry no zombies.
oriented to mission. fund what matters. ethereum pointed at the world’s most contemporary problems now, localism/ai livelihood first.
a good steward of what’s left. $16m (ish) across treasuries, spent like it’s yours. don’t bleed capital.
celebrate the legacy. qf went from whitepaper to standard and ~$70m moved to public goods. the losses were honest experiments; we toast them too.
look forward. by dec 2027: a seven-figure philanthropic check, a movement on an exponential curve, our frame showing up in conversations we didn’t start.

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.

SEEDGov · July 21, 2026, 9:41pm

Hi there!

Certainly an interesting approach with some bold moves, which is something always worth recognizing. Going over some of the Qs.

Where does legitimacy during this transitionary period come from, to you?
To some extent legitimacy derives from reputation, which is something that the incorporation of the trust graphs ackowledges at some point. Of course this shouldn’t exclude new-comers (which is something that DAOs have struggled with for a long time) but there’s value having endured the many cycles and changes the ecosystem has had, including Gitcoin of course.

Also independence has been brought up, which we certainly share but we’d also like to add agency as one core value that brings legitimacy. If independence brings the freedom to choose, agency brings the willingness and responsability to act.

Lastly, representation. Diversity is key from a regional, domain and expertise perspective. Stewards should precisely embody that diversity at the point where tech, business and community meets.

Is this the right shape? (size, term, time commitment, charter) + Stipend
@MathildaDV has summarized our same concerns and naturally the answer depends on the expectations over stewards. Nonetheless, 3 monthly hours may fall short (mostly on the async side) if things get busy or complex thinking of the 75% extitutional. Just a gut feel.

Does the trust graph direction excite or worry you? why?
It is certainly interesting but wondering how/if the trust graph parameters should be governed. As an early thought, optimizing for longevity does sound reasonable in order to think of the long term (at least a year) or the extitutional roadmap.

Anyway, and echoing what has been mentioned, it does not sound as a pressing need but more of a target to aim to (which of course can be built in parallalel).

owocki · July 22, 2026, 12:56am

imo the most important thing right now is ‘does gitcoin have an offering in market that people love? that has linear inputs and exponential outputs? that has PMF?"‘

i think legitimacy comes from many places. and the ones you propose are definitely important ones to keep in our awareness as our attention is on rebuilding legitimacy through PMF/market offering.

i wonder what @JakeHartnell has to say about trustgraph param governance. are we building a strange loop here?

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.