thanks for the questions
How do you plan to make the “% extitutional” metric more data‑driven across power, membership, and context, rather than a rough weighted read?
you can read the trustgraph data onchain. maybe someone will build a tool that makes it easier to do without technical skills! although arguably this is accessible to anyone with an LLM
If the trust graph does not hold a meaningful slice of delegation by December 2026, what is the explicit fallback governance plan?
gtc holders continue to have the ability to vote on snapshot/tally, just like before. the trustgraph is supportive of this structure, not competitive.
What concrete caps or guardrails will you use to mitigate sybil attacks, cliques, or cartelized behavior as the trust graph updates delegation nightly.
sybil attacks are not a threat vector for trustgraph, as there is no bonus to generating new identity.
cliques, or cartelized behaviour => imo these are the kinds of questions that gitcoin stewards asked a lot all through 2021-2025, when we laboured to keep cliques and cartels out of gitcoin governance, and the end result was spending $25m on a product almost no one wanted (why did we focus so much on this in 2021-2025? im not quite sure, i think it was part of some assumptions about dao governance at the time..). it turns out building great software is really hard and it needs pockets of contributors with high trust/context/enablement. and no one cares about governing something thats a sinking ship. this caused a downward spiral of irrelvance for gitcoin, and most of the people who worried about cartels in 2021 were long gone by 2025 (actually many stewards disengaged in that period).
i think that once gitcoin again has a product in market that people actually want, we can and should worry a lot about preventing cartels (and arguably trustgraph does a lot to provide the right foundations for that time, and will put us in a good position if were in a fortunate enough position that gitcoin has built a very valuable protocol to be governed by then). but until then, i think this is secondary in priority to building a product ppl actually want.
When will the full rule‑set for signal decay (half‑life, thresholds, negative signals) be published so the graph does not operate as a black box?
i defer to @JakeHartnell on this
Since the cohort’s charter is to “keep the 3.0 team honest”, what measurable accountability metrics will you track to show this is happening in practice?
the main thing that matters to me is my mandate as executive steward
i dont know how to quantify this (yet).
but… gtc holders continue to have the ability to vote on snapshot/tally, just like before. the trustgraph is supportive of this structure, not competitive.
What clear eligibility criteria will govern the shift from a founder‑selected list to “earned trust” membership in the trust graph and steward cohort?
for the seed of my delegations in the trust graph, its “do you understand gitcoin past + proposed future? can i have an honest/constructive conversation with you? can you allocate 3 hours a month to gitcoin governance? will you be direct with me, whether its good or bad?”
when someone in the trustgraph, makes their own endorsement of someone new, their eligbility criteria are up to them.
Which parts of the context window are guaranteed to be public, and will you commit to specific publishing SLAs for those artifacts?
i was planning on publishing notes from the transitionary stewards context window under chattham house rules to the gov forum (which will show up in the gitcoin gov brain).
At the 25% (Dec 2026) and 75% (July 2027) checkpoints, what explicit levers do GTC holders have if the trust‑graph design under‑performs its goals? @owocki
gtc holders continue to have the ability to vote on snapshot/tally, just like before. the trustgraph is supportive of this structure, not comptetitive..
Disclaimer: This post is for informative purposes only and is not financial advice. This post reflects my personal views ahead of the stewards’ review, 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.
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.