Over the last few years, Gitcoin has been building solutions around how we fund the public goods we care about, most successfully using quadratic funding, a novel mechanism designed by Vitalik, Glen Weyl, and Zoe Hitzig in 2018.
The way this mechanism works is simple, projects in Ethereum can list themselves as public goods in need of funding, and participants can democratically allocate funds from a community managed matching pool by donating some of their own money. By its design, quadratic funding incentivizes every member of the community to fund the infrastructure they want to see in direct proportion to how useful it will be to them, providing a possible solution to our digital tragedy of the commons.
Given the interest we’ve seen so far from an amazing group of stewards, and some of the recent heated debate we’ve seen around what to do with AKITA, I’d like to propose a workstream around how we think about best leveraging quadratic funding, and in particular how we decide some of the operational details of the Gitcoin Grants matching rounds we run each quarter.
Some ideas for what this workstream might address include:
- Ways to meme “Public Goods” into mainstream consciousness, to help convince people that these coordination problems ARE solvable
- Best practices for managing the Gitcoin Grants matching pool and multisig by governing round sizes, themes, and parameters.
- Creating policy regarding what is/is not an acceptable grant (what counts as a public good?)
- Deciding on what a fair dispute resolution process for grants might look like
This is just an initial suggestion, so feel free to add any thoughts you have below.
If you already know this is a workstream you’d want to be part of and you’ve already stated your intent to be a steward here, just fill out this workstream-specific Doodle so we can find some time for a first call:
If you’re not sure if this is a fit but don’t want to message publicly, feel free to DM me on our Discord server: