I’ve seen it.
But I find it very complicated and also very speculative. It sounds like TLDR the DAO is still experimenting with where GTC adds utility to the protocolDAO.
Can anyone explain in simple terms what the utility of GTC is? Or do you have an ETA on when a simple explanation will become clear? I think it is important.
This is accurate. I would say that our plan for continuous R&D delivering utility to GTC is better than something like a “fee switch”.
Last season we ran our first identity staking experiments. Here is a deck with some of the results.
I think about GTC in three ways - Voting rights, Protocol Utility, Regen Signaling. This is just my personal perspective from the vantage point I have… I would encourage others to fork this or to present their own thinking.
It’s worth noting, this is not investment advice and I do not believe folks should speculate on the token. If you need/want it because it has utility to you, it is available via lots of means (partnerships, open market, DAO contribution, hackathons/contests, grants, etc.)
We know that there is value in having a voice in how funding for public goods are allocated. GTC voting is how capital is allocated from the Grants Matching pool. this creates an incentive to have and hold GTC so that you can direct funds to the projects you care most about. There are parallels to how rewards from Maker and other protocols are used in bribes to garner votes, etc.
The Grants protocol will likely have a fee similar to the way the existing platform does (to fund public goods). those fees that accrue (what percent) and how to use those fees will also be up to GTC holders to decide.
GTC is an integral part of a couple of experiments we have today. GTC Staking on Identity is an important part of Passport and will likely be important in helping determine a “price of forgery” (a new score we are evaluating to reduce sybil attacks).
We have mocked up other grant curation mechanisms that are based on GTC staking (as a signal of legitimacy for a grant - though not the only signal as we are also exploring impact certificates, etc.). We don’t have a lot of details to share on this yet, but we know that lots of folks have had problems finding the best grants to fund. incentivizing that curation is also on the roadmap.
Holding GTC is a signal for support of public goods. Some of the “best” community members have and hold GTC, and as a result GTC gating exists on our swag store and also in a couple other places we are exploring. I see holding GTC as a signal to your dedication to funding and supporting public goods (same signals as when staking on identity or projects with GTC). We want to offer reasons to hold GTC as a regen signal, but we are early in our thinking here as well.
Each of these buckets offer reasons to have, hold and use GTC. This is how I think about the utility and uses, but I am just one opinion. Some of these uses are not yet built, but we want to experiment more in the near future (with the protocol launches).
https://twitter.com/gitcoin/status/1305932004848889856
https://twitter.com/gitcoin/status/1369702138188881926
It seems like tweets like this are really effective for driving engagement and rewarding members of the funders league.
If you believe that one of the utilities of GTC is the regen virtue signal, perhaps it’d be worth recognizing GTC holders in much the same way. Nobody is going to check on chain who is a regen, but lots of people pay attention to twitter.
How compelling do people find these value propositions? Has there been any studY of that?
It would be good to find one good meme for GTC value proposition. For example Bitcoin has “sound money”. ETH has “ultra sound money”. What is GTCs value proposition in 4 words or less?
Definitely agree on doing a better job of publicly celebrating those who are large GTC holders to build that culture. We are exploring how we might do that.
In a similar vein, some of us have discussed how might we reward good actors (those contributing to grants rounds, those running grants rounds) with more governance rights (GTC) as well.
The initial airdrop was focused on empowering those who helped build and make Gitcoin with governing rights (GTC). We have stopped doing this, and I think its important we continue to invite those who are values aligned to help us govern the protocol.
We are working on what that might look like and how to do it in a way that incentives the actions we want (altruistic participation) and discourages just farming for rewards.
Happy to share ideas, figmas, contracts, etc from what Giveth will be launching in 8 days.
That would be excellent Griff.
Like many, I’ve gone through the rabbit hole regarding tokenomics. tl;dr - I’m not sure many of the systems really reflect the values of Gitcoin; generally, they are complex, they can be gamed, and they are seemingly by design not transparent.
What if we did something dead simple such as the following:
Something simple like that. Let’s assess the worst case (zero basis budgets), build plans to capture some value via revenues, and start to address GTC utility in part through burning GTC as we grow.
These are just outlines. Per our steward meeting today, our DaoOPS workstream is working through improved budgeting now. I look forward to seeing their proposal.
Of all of the things you’ve done at giveth to make GIV valuable, what has been the most effective?
As someone who is also researching GitcoinDAO and has a little distance I think I can do the “simple” answer you request:
(a) it confers governance rights or the ability to influence the direction of the DAO.
(b) it is used to fund the workstreams.
And all this is couched in a cultural commitment to public goods funding. Remember the DAO’s mission is to fund what cannot get funded elsewhere due to its non-monetizable nature. It is not a token in the same way UNI is (partially a proxy for Uniswap’s financial performance).
Avoid this approach at all costs. Any revenues should go towards public goods, not engaging in ponzinomics. GTC can have value without these gimmicks.
What you refer to as “ponzinomics” is simply whether the token is a security (under which dividends and buybacks are par for the course). Despite the significant amount of venture investment in GTC, I tend to agree that expectations of a risk-adjusted return should not be honored (it’s also illegal to issue unregistered securities).
This leaves two paths:
Path 1. is a very important distinction. Without it, selling GTC does not improve our financial standing at all - every contributor payment, every treasury diversification, etc just digs us deeper into the liability hole. We do not engage in profit-seeking endeavors and cannot return the risk-adjusted equivalent of 4% on a growing market-cap (even if we could, creating that expectation would be illegal).
The question that remains is, if the token is expected to be a commodity/utility which is, on expectation, financially on par with cash or decaying cash, why even use a volatile instrument? Why not charge for all utility in dollars? Stake in dollars? Etc.
The obvious answer to the above is that we already passed the point of no return. We lack the reserves to peg $GTC to a fixed dollar price, or buy it out. We would have to pursue path 2. to stabilize the utility pricing.
The other point I want to bring up in this thread is the concept of equivalence in tax incidence. In short, taking a cut from matching sponsors is equivalent to taking a cut from participants. The value that Gitcoin provides is the same - it’s the process. Sponsors pay for the brand and legitimacy that Gitcoin adds to their grantmaking, which comes from the resources the DAO spends to ensure fair outcomes. Participants pay (but not really pay, since their donation still gets a net increase) for access to the matching funds. To understand that all of this is equivalent greatly simplifies the design space, as the variable of what people are paying for is fixed, it just a matter of how we roll out the payment. Every GTC utility proposal ultimately boils down to this. Why not then adopt the simplest and most direct payment methods? For example, any of the following:
Just a bump on this, @griff do you have any insight into what you’ve launched and what has been effective?
A little bit LO @Lunacat . My post starts by stating let’s not do something complex in tokenomics, let’s do something simple to convey utility whether burning tokens or generating revenues etc.
Your response is basically - the specific example I mentioned IS a “gimmick” and we can drive value some other way.
ok - great. Could you be specific? What other way? I promise not to immediately label it a ponzinomics gimmick. All ideas are welcome - it is the only way we are collectively going to figure this out in a credible way.
Thx for the bump. We just launched GIVpower but its too early to see if it has had an impact yet. It’s effectively the veCRV model but for donation mining instead of liquidity mining.
But this is exactly against what @epowell101 said
I think making projects stake GTC to participate is an option… I have been thinking about this in Giveth as a way to prove people are using a real wallet address and making it small but Giveth doesn’t have enough demand to make that work, Gitcoin’s rounds do.
Also, just converting matching pools slowly to GTC could be an option…
But again all of these are tokenomics…
The more obvious thing is eventually charging round partners in GTC for services, and finding other revenue models that work, and forcing people to use GTC for them.
I am not a fan of the burn mechanism… its good for memes but in the long run, the DAO is burning thru the GTC it has, the goal should be to send all revenue to the DAO and eventually live within it’s means… as in:
GTC in = GTC out
With a whole bunch of GTC acting as a pool of resources.
I do think there are major opportunities to bake tokenomics in to the protocol in various ways… and hopefully Giveth and Gitcoin can work together in building these options… cause that is what we spend a lot of time thinking about 
Thanks for this super helpful clarification.
Totally agree we should get to GTC in = GTC out, and looking forward to collaborating and building with Giveth on tokenomics front.
Agree with this.
One nuance to me is that we may op market buy GTC with the goal of putting back into the hands of those who care about public goods (either contributors, rewards to good actors, etc.).
This removes some from open markets, but continues to center our economy on GTC.
The recent SEC complaint against Eisenberg should be in everyone’s mind. GTC as is was distributed in a way and is used in a way that does not violate securities law (imo). If Gitcoin DAO starts directly engaging in various forms of outright manipulation such as buy backs, that is a different story…
For reference, and I very much encourage all to read this through…
*edit - I just want to be clear that the DAO purchasing GTC on the open market so the tokens can be reallocated to others that are active in the community isn’t the same as a burn mechanism, and is a good idea worthy of being entertained
Not sure what LO means. I am only trying to keep GitcoinDAO from clearly violating securities law through poorly thought through incentives. Any mechanism in which the DAO is buying the token to burn it is not only against Gitcoin’s stated mission, but likely will make GTC a security. Sorry.
As for a solution, if the platform and brand is valuable (which I believe it is), then governance will be valuable in and of itself. Focus on the platform and the protocols coming out. Not ponzinomics.
My reason to hold GTC , is because I couldn’t afford to buy ETH , instead of accumulating GTC . It relatively more trustful than most of other projects out there .