Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
GG23 Kickoff Space
Recorded: April 2, 2025 Duration: 0:54:54Space Recording
Short Summary
Gitcoin has launched its 23rd round, introducing a multi-mechanism approach that includes quadratic and retro funding rounds. The round features innovative strategies such as badge holder voting and GTC staking, aiming to enhance community involvement and funding efficiency. Collaborations with organizations like the Ethereum Foundation highlight strategic partnerships, while high-quality applications indicate growth in participation. The focus on operationalizing funding based on project stages reflects a trend towards more tailored funding strategies.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. GMGM everyone
we are going to get started officially in a few minutes
we're just waiting for a few more people to trickle in
but in the meantime I will rattle off and let you all know
what is happening with GG23 which kicked off a few hours ago. This is a moment that has been really exciting
for me because it has been a really long process of planning and strategizing and structuring this
round in the way that it is today, but we're going to talk about that more in a moment.
but we're going to talk about that more in a moment.
Just a quick TLDR on if you're joining in,
just letting you all know what is happening with this round.
So as I mentioned, it kicked off.
As per usual, our QF donations have kicked off,
and they are going to be live for two weeks.
But just a reminder, we are multi-mechanism now,
so we don't only have quadratic funding rounds.
We will also be
opening up our badge holder voting for our retro funding round in one week from now.
So they're kind of like overlapping. So we'll be doing two weeks of QF donations and then halfway
through QF, we will open up the retro badge holder voting, which we will also talk about in a moment.
open up the retro badge holder voting, which we will also talk about in a moment. And so it's
kind of going to be like a three week round. But yeah, I'm super excited about this. And I see that
we have, I think everyone on stage with us. So I'm going to stop talking for a moment and give
the stage, give, give the stage. Yes. Give the mic to my guests on stage today.
If you don't know who I am, I completely forgot to introduce myself.
My name is Matilda.
I'm Grant's program lead here at Gitcoin.
And, yeah, I've been working alongside all these amazing people on stage here today
as well as a lot of other consultants.
And there's been a lot of brains going into the structure of
GG23 so I'm really happy to have you all on stage and just a quick housekeeping I know we are a lot
of you are might might be expecting a full like shill space today today is going to be mostly a
kickoff space we're going to be just outlining what's happening with the round.
And then if there obviously is some time at the end, we are going to be opening it up for projects to ask questions or to shill.
But the real shill spaces are going to start tomorrow.
So just keep an eye out for those events as well.
So I'm going to hand off to Carl first to introduce yourself.
Hey everyone, thanks Matilda. It's really fun to be here. My name is Carl. I'm working on a project
called Open Source Observer. We build technology to measure impact in the open and we partner with
communities like Gitcoin to identify metrics that are useful for measuring impact in their community. Really excited about this round. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. I've been
a longtime supporter and follower and participant in Gitcoin rounds, and I think it's really fun
to see what multi-mechanism is going to look like. Very excited and yeah, I have a lot more to say
once we get into it, but I'll pass it off to Launamu.
Hi, amazing, thank you. I'm a little bit sick,
so I might sound a little bit raspy,
but hi everyone, my name's Launamu.
I work around on the topic of impact valuation.
I develop different impact valuation frameworks and
theories of change for open source projects and technologies.
Right now I've been collaborating with PSE and the Ethereum Foundation precisely on supporting
open source tech in the privacy and CK space.
And previously I've also collaborated with Optimism, served as a batch holder in multiple of the rounds,
and to the day still provide as well feedback for the design of their rounds.
I've also worked with Gitcoin before in different capacities,
and I'm really excited to see the first multi-mechanism Gitcoin round happening.
There's been a lot of effort and a lot of work put into it, the first multi-mechanism Gitcoin round happening.
There's been a lot of effort and a lot of work put into it.
So really excited to see, to open it up for the community
to experience what new mechanisms look like
when they are distributing funding for all of these projects
that really make the Ethereum ecosystem what it is.
Amazing, Rohit, what it is. Amazing.
Rohit, over to you.
Yeah, thanks, Mathilda.
Hope you feel better soon, Ladamo.
Hey, everyone.
My name is Rohit.
I work at the Reserver.
I dabble with data and insights generation
doing grand 30 performance.
I'm really excited to have helped assisted
information of the first ever retro round
that's metrics driven.
Looking forward to see how it's received
and learning our lessons
and iterating on a multi-mechanism future at Bitcoin.
I've been a grantee, been a donor at Bitcoin.
So looking forward to the next two weeks.
Amazing. Yeah, so maybe we start like right at thecoin. So looking forward to the next two weeks. Amazing. Yeah. So maybe we start like right at the beginning, right? So for those who are listening, who have, you know,
maybe you're new to the Gitcoin ecosystem. Maybe we'll just do a little bit of a recap on how we
got to this multi-mechanism round in the first case. So this is our 23rd round to date.
The Get Current Grants program kicked off in 2019.
And for 22 rounds, we ran quadratic funding.
But, you know, last year we started seeing and we started kind of noticing that, you
know, quadratic funding is an amazing and super powerful mechanism, but it isn't a one
funding is an amazing and super powerful mechanism, but it isn't a one size fits all.
size fits all.
So we started thinking, especially as we started exploring the capital allocation space and
new mechanisms were coming to light.
It's like, okay, but how can we maybe restructure our program a bit to drive more valuable funding
to our OSS builders.
So that's where we sat down and we saw,
okay, well, why don't we bring in retro funding
for our mature builders and keep quadratic funding
for early stage builders as well.
So yeah, maybe I'll throw it over to you, Carl,
because you and I had this conversation first
so we'd love to hear your thoughts on kind of how this all came to be and you know what has your
experience been as we've been designing this for the last I don't know since November actually
yeah so it definitely has come a long way. And it's really exciting to be at the precipice of opening this up. I think that if you look at the criticisms of quadratic funding in the past, one of them is that it's very difficult for new projects to get observed, because they are oftentimes competing with very well known, very well established projects that have a very big following already in the Ethereum
ecosystem. And I can certainly relate to this. The first time we joined the Gitcoin round,
no one had heard of us. And it's very difficult to attract a large amount of contributions from
people who haven't heard of you, especially when you're going up against really big projects like like Hay and Revote Cash and Lens and so on.
And so I think the first thing was that it might be worth considering that there is a need to graduate certain projects
out of the kind of main quadratic funding pool
and maybe into some other kind of category.
That was like the first thing that we were discussing.
So what if we actually just separate these
and you had one group of like 30 or so really battle-tested projects
that have been around for three or four years that have, you know, been pillars of every quarter of
the Gitcoin rounds that have been happening throughout the bear market and so on. And then
also try and create some new space in the main rounds for other projects to kind of rise up and have maybe the same experience that those successful projects had three or four years ago when they were new at that time.
So I think that was like the first idea is how to separate these two.
Then there was the kind of notion that will actually maybe one really good way of rewarding those projects that have had such a big impact on growing Gitcoins community would be to do a retrofunding type
experiment with them. One thing that we all have observed, and I certainly felt that as a donor,
is that there's something about Gitcoin rounds that gets people to not only contribute to
projects that they know, but also explore new projects. And just the fact that a big project
has a big following, and they're getting their donor community to show up, exposes those donors
to all these other projects that they might be interested in. And in my own case, I learned about
a lot of projects for the first time through Bitcoin rounds. And I was drawn to those rounds
because there's other projects that want to support there. So the thing that we thought very
carefully of is how do we make it so that there
is some kind of positive network effect where the projects that have historically had the most
impact in getting donors to show up can still do well and continue to mobilize their community
and receive funding, but also ensure that there's some way to shine light on new up and coming projects.
And I think it was trying to solve for those two problems where the design space of trying to create
a retrofunding round which rewarded existing projects for their impact on the Gitcoin community,
getting donors to show up, getting donors to come repeatedly and contribute, getting donors to
support the variety of projects, etc. And at the same time, have a quadratic funding round,
which didn't have these kind of big whale projects in there.
It might give an opportunity for some of the up-and-coming projects
to get a larger share of the matching pool.
So those are kind of the design ideas that we built around.
And then, yeah, I guess we'll hear from other participants,
but the pieces fell into place shortly after that.
Yeah, that's great.
And, yeah, to iterate again what you said, Decol, as well,
this is a big experiment.
This is the first time that we're doing this.
We're not expecting it to be absolutely perfect yet,
but that is the beauty of building
in public and building with our community and for the community. So as always, we will be taking
feedback. We will be hosting retrospectives after this round to see how we might improve and iterate
moving forward. I am really excited to also say we did have 30.
So the retro round specifically was an opt-in round. So we decided that we would cap the retro round to 30 projects, but we would make it optional for projects.
So you can, you know, any project could have opted into the round or they could have opted out and decided to go into the quadratic funding round.
And we only had one project opt out, not because they didn't want to participate, just because they weren't, you know, actively building.
So that was quite exciting for me to see.
Um, it seems to be quite a good amount of momentum around this round.
It seems to be quite a good amount of momentum around this round.
We've also received some really high quality applications in the quadratic funding rounds,
which is really, really awesome to see as well.
I think we've lost Rohit.
I was going to throw the next question over to him, but hopefully, hopefully we get him
back soon.
I see him back in the audience.
He might've had a connection issue.
Okay.
He's going to invite him back up to the stage.
Yeah, we'll, we'll get him back up in a sec.
There we go.
Yeah, but I would...
Rohit, are you back with us?
Yeah, I'm back.
I'm hearing audio in and out.
So in case I lose you again, I'm probably wrong.
But I can hear you now.
Okay, perfect.
Yeah, I can hear you pretty clearly now.
The ultimate, I mean, you know, Gigi wouldn't be a Gigi round if we didn't experience some sort of Twitter rug on the first day.
Yeah, Rohit, I would love to dive into, you know, you were instrumental to designing the metrics for how, you know, there were two.
Oh, he's gone again.
I don't know if I can throw this over to you, Carl,
around the metrics around how early stage projects and mature projects were
established.
And then also what the metrics are that we're tracking in the voting for,
for the retro round.
Rohit is back,
but I will buy some time
until we get him back on stage.
But the
metrics really focused on
three types of things.
So the first one
is just focused on the
amount of contributions
that have been mobilized by
a project.
So one of the goals that Gitcoin has had for quite some time
is to grow the amount of grant funding that is coming to the Ethereum ecosystem.
In the past, they've looked at the overall amount of funding
that comes both from donors as well as from match funders as one of the targets.
A second thing that was looked at was the diversity
and the consistency of the donor community.
Obviously, Gitcoin is intending to create a recurring set of donors that kind of go every quarter and support the products to identify projects that had built up a loyal community and had to continue to get those donors to show up on a recurring basis.
And then the third one is just that the products are continuing to build.
Given that this is an OSS round, you know, some products are a single solo person.
Some products are a single solo person, others have larger teams.
Others have larger teams.
And so there was some desire to kind of capture how big is the team working on this project and how consistent have they been over the two or three year period that they've been participating in these rounds.
So I'm not sure if Rohit's able to come back on stage and go into the details.
But those are the three high level categories.
high level categories. Again, the amount of funding that the product attracted for Gitcoin,
the diversity and the consistency of the donor base, and then the builder perspective,
like the depth of the team and how consistent that team had been over the past few years.
And the way this will work, I guess, which might be new to some people is that in the quadratic funding round,
people will, as always, be voting on the products they'd like the best. And you can choose as many
as you want. When it comes to the retro funding round, people will actually be picking the metrics
that they think are most important or the combination of metrics they think are most
important for rewarding projects. So maybe the thing that you care about most is attracting a
diverse and consistent donor base. And so you want to go all the way to
the max and there'll be certain projects that rise to the top based on that metric. Or maybe
you want something much more balanced and you want some kind of combination of that takes into
takes into account the size of the team, the diversity of the donor base, and then, you know,
overall how much funding has been brought in. You could express that as well through your vote.
So it's pretty interesting. And I think the cool thing about that is that based on how the
community votes, how the badge holders vote, we will get a sign of what forms of impact
the Gikman community thinks is most important for projects to bring.
Do we have our hit back?
I think you covered it all, Carl.
Thank you for the overview. I think my experience, the only other thing I would add is,
and this was probably late last year when we started discussing
what metrics might make sense,
given how diverse a lot of the ecosystem participants are within Gitcoin,
all the way from infrastructure to DAppSynApp, including hackathon grantees.
I personally wasn't very convinced that we'll be able to find common measurements
across such a diverse field.
So that's the mindset I started with.
But I think the more we looked into the data, we were able to find levers that were transparent,
that were publicly available, verifiable, easy to understand, comprehensive enough to
do justice to the diversity of projects that come under the Gitcoin umbrella.
And yeah, so that's all that went behind the list of metrics that Carl just walked through.
So yeah, I am pretty excited and also know that this is going to be an iterative process.
Metrics are just an indicator and no metrics are perfect.
So based on the feedback and how the community prioritizes these indicators,
I think we'll want to continue to iterate and build upon the first version.
Yeah, 100%. It's been such a journey and such a pleasure to be designing this alongside you all,
but you've definitely done the huge heavy lifting in this. So I just want to shout you both out for all the work that you've done here.
It's been really great to see this come to life.
You know, just from a random conversation at DevCon to see this, you know, come full circle is really awesome.
And it seems like, you know, the momentum that we're seeing with gg23 it just for you know for now it
signals i believe that we're going in the right direction um because again like you said carl a
lot of the feedback that we also started receiving from projects is that they were struggling to get
visibility in the rounds um so i'm really excited to also see some of the newer projects, you know, pop up in the rounds.
I'm very curious to see how the donations are going to go as well.
And we'll also be, you know, we'll also be getting the retro projects to engage with the quadratic funding rounds as well.
You know, so there's so many pieces to this as well that there's so much that goes on in the background with these rounds.
And I just want to also shout out to Team Tiger.
Wasabi, I see you in the audience as well.
We've got an incredible set of reviewers.
I mean, they don't just do our reviews for us for OSA's program.
They do support.
They, you know, design things with us, they've really become
like integral to these Gitcoin grants rounds. So just a huge shout out to Team Tiger for all the
work that you have been doing. If you are still waiting for an answer, if you've applied to one
of the OSS rounds, our team is busy finalizing all reviews today and you'll be getting some communication from us as
well so just wanted to plug that in but um lao i will throw it over to you next as well i would
love to hear from you because you've also been consulting on this whole design process and
especially you know in the impact space that you work in i would love to hear your thoughts around
this multi-mechanism approach that we are moving into and how,
from your perspective, how something like this could strengthen a grants program.
Yes, I think this is a really interesting approach. Something that had floated among
several of the public goods funding tooling and organizations at the end of last year was looking at what
was necessary for each of these teams to thrive depending on the stage that they were in.
It's not teams that are at very early stages where they haven't yet developed an MVP. Maybe
they have an idea,
it's just a concept, they have not validated it with users, are going to need very different things than projects who have already a solid base of monthly or monthly active users.
They're continuously delivering upgrades, new value to an existing audience.
delivering upgrades, new value to an existing audience.
So these two groups, and for example, in the long tail,
you also have projects that they've achieved sustainability.
They found how to.
If they are interested in monetizing the work
that they've done, they found a way in which to do it.
Or they found a way in which they are it, or they found a way in which they are able
to sustain themselves if they are public goods.
So looking at this, I remember talking with different people at Octant and some other
communities around where are each of these teams at right now, and what is the type of
funding that they have access to and then also what is the type of what amount do they need in this funding what are the type of
results and metrics that they are generating that could make it a lot easier for people to consider
how to evaluate them and identify if these are projects that should continue to receive funding and what
type of funding they should be receiving. So it's really interesting to see Gitcoin moving
to operationalizing this concept of, well, there's teams, the ones that are participating right now
in the QF round, where maybe these are very young products, or this might be
ideas that still require validation and therefore are very dependent on who the stakeholders
are that are donating to them, voting to them, their ability to rally a community that has
this conviction on the potential value
that they are going to deliver.
And then as we introduce the retroactive funding
as a mechanism for Gitcoin, we're
able to make this difference of, just as Carl was mentioning,
graduating some of these projects into a type of evaluation that is much more defined in terms of understanding as well,
which I actually think is going to be one of the most interesting outcomes from the reach around.
How can we understand what the Gitcoin community actually values?
How can we understand what the Gitcoin community actually values?
What are the things, what are the metrics that they think yield the most benefit to the ecosystem?
Because then we're not only going to be, yes, we're looking at how the teams are performing on each one of these different metrics.
metrics, but it's also a way in which to, a way of sense making for the Gitcoin community around
what do we really care about. And then there's going to be very interesting analysis that we're
going to be able to do, even if just testing to how logic the metrics that are being chosen are and understanding the audiences better of what
are these projects generating for the ecosystem? Do we think that these are the metrics that we
should be using to evaluate them with? Are there metrics that we're missing and that are making
these projects really impactful and really important for the ecosystem that we should be
looking at? And then how can we include that into this map of graduating projects and their own
life cycles so that Gitcoin is able to continue to provide value for the different projects, regardless of the stage of the lifecycle that the project is in.
So, yeah, I'm really excited to see more of this happening.
I think it also makes it a lot, it can be a lot fairer, just as Carl was mentioning as well, in terms of how the projects are competing against one another.
as Carl was mentioning as well,
in terms of how the projects are competing
against one another.
But super excited to see what are the type of metrics
that the community thinks are relevant.
And I think most importantly, again,
what are the discussions that arise from this?
Because this is a first iteration,
which means obviously that this is not going to be the best necessarily,
but it's only through the information that we're able to get from the community
on their perspectives around the metrics that are being used,
the type of results that we're getting, metrics that we might have missed,
that can be gathered or would be useful to leverage in future rounds,
that we're going to be able to continue improving this mechanism.
Yeah, I'm really excited about this as we're talking about, you know,
the life cycle of builders.
It's honestly something I've been thinking about for years.
Wow, how long have I been at Gitcoin?
Almost three years. Okay, It feels like a lot longer, but for a long time, because I've been
involved in quite a lot of these rounds and it's something that I've always thought about, how do
we, especially that graduation path for builders and how do we, first of all, celebrate that. I
mean, we've seen builders come from being a grantee to then funding our matching pool and then running their own community rounds.
You know, so there's always been a very clear path as well that a lot of grantees have taken.
And I actually heard from a grantee last year.
I noticed that it's a very high quality, like very successful grantee that didn't participate in GG22.
And I actually reached out to
them directly. And I asked them, why didn't you participate? And they said, well, we wanted to
make space for, for other projects in the QF rounds. And now that project is in our retro round.
So I think that is a really beautiful, like, you know, it's, that's a really great path. Like we're
actually putting the steps in place according to feedback and also
just allowing like a larger field of fairer and more valuable funding,
which yeah, I'm really excited to iterate on as well.
Yeah. I'd love to add something there, actually.
I think one observation that I think the climate projects
and some of the refi products have done a really good job with
is that some of the bigger ones there have already started doing their own rounds.
So they'll have their own community rounds.
They will go in and kind of get their own funding from external sources
and then use that to launch their own completely independent quadratic funding round.
I think it'd be great
if some of the OSS projects started doing that as well. Obviously not putting words into their
mouth, they can make their own decision. But it would be, as you were saying, it'd be really nice
if there was this kind of matriculation where you go from being an obscure project to being at the
top of the quadratic funding, to graduating, to retrofunding, to graduating out of retrofunding
and doing your own kind of smaller scale community rounds and then eventually getting to the point where you're a uniswap or someone very large that's able to
be a large matching pool donor. I think that would be great if we had more success stories like that.
Yeah, I definitely agree. I think that that would be really great. And that's another piece of
something that I've been working on and thinking on along for a long time is how do we support our builders not just through funding you know so it's
like hey just rock up to a round come grab some funding okay see you next time how do we create
more consistent um support networks for our builders in between rounds as well, you know, where we could have these kind of, you
know, we just launched guilds again, but how we can have these support networks where we
can help to funnel builders into the right paths and support them to create those paths
as well for them.
Let's maybe pivot to how the badge holder voting is going to work. So just a
reminder that our QF and retro rounds are overlapping with one another. We did this on
purpose. So QF is open from today. Donations are open from today for two weeks. so until the 16th, but retro badge holders go start the voting, sorry,
start on the 9th to the 23rd. So we, yeah, I'd love to also throw this over to you,
Carl, and allow, I see your hand is loud, so I'll hand this over to you first.
Thanks, Matilda, and I'm sorry, because I'm going to digress a little
bit. I think that what Carl just mentioned is a really good point. For example, I'd be, particularly,
I recently read, like, Vitalik's post on reframing public goods funding into open source funding,
and I'd actually be super excited and really interested
to see open source projects take this definition onto their hands to identify who their peers are.
I come from a public policy background. So for me, public goods is a very well-defined term,
right? Like we're using it in a different way. And obviously that's going to come with its own limitations. But I think that I really think that using Gitcoin as a platform
for open source projects to create their own definition of who do we think our peers are
that should be getting access to this type of funds that
are advancing this open source infrastructure that we all depend on in the ecosystem could
be something really good.
I remember chatting and giving advice to the Climate Network probably a year ago when
they were first developing and identifying what were the metrics
that they wanted to use for their own round. And it was a very interesting process in which they
had to talk with many of the projects that were participating in the round, like really come face
to face with the stakeholders that would be benefiting from these funds, but also with the communities that
were reaping off the impact that these projects were generating. And it was very interesting to
see an alignment of this is what we believe is valuable, or like this is what we've identified
as valuable for the communities, and therefore this is what we want projects to be delivering on.
So, yeah, I'm just going to put it out there,
and maybe I see the Ethereum cat herders here,
and I'm sure there's many other projects out there
that could be really good at leading one of these rounds
and pushing for a definition that makes it a lot more solid for the open source
community open source software community to create this at least initial standards of what do we
who do we see as our peers and what are the things that we would like to test that
are best for the ecosystem to fund in this nation.
Yeah.
Oh, Carl, go ahead.
No, I fully agree with everything that Lanham just said.
I have to jump off and take another call in one minute, but I do want to address the point
that you brought up about badge holders.
And I think the one thing
that I've always admired about Gitcoin
over the years,
the various ups and downs
and market turmoil,
is that people who have passed through Gitcoin,
either as a man who's worked there
or been a steward or so on,
have this deep sense
of wanting Gitcoin to succeed.
And the part that is probably, you know,
I think we almost take it for granted right now,
but what has allowed Gitcoin to be what it is,
is the fact that you have this big, diverse donor base
that shows up on a recurring basis every few months
and contributes and they fund public goods
and they fund Gitcoin grants.
And that's like one of the most important heartbeats
in the Ethereum ecosystem.
So, you know, putting on my badge holder hat, because I am going to get to be a badge holder, I definitely care a lot about that as a metric.
I don't actually care which projects are, well, I mean, we will see which products are best at doing that.
But I think one of the most important things to reward here is the act of showing up and embodying the spirit of quadratic funding, which is funding
a plurality of things and doing it regularly and not just copying your friends, but bringing your
own unique perspective. I think that's a really important thing, and I'm excited to express that
in my vote as a bachelor. And I have to jump, but you're in good hands. Thanks, everybody,
and wishing every success for the round. Thank you so much, Carl. Yeah, super exciting times for sure.
Yeah, so let's chat about badge holders on that note. So we have decided that we're going to have three tiers of badge holders in the retro
round. So we have done some direct outreach to expert badge holders. We're
gonna have about 20 to 30 expert badge holders that are going to be voting.
Their votes are going to be weighted higher than the other two tiers.
And the other two tiers are going to be our community members. So this
will be a set of donors from GG18 to GG22, as well as GTC holders. So again, on that vein,
you know, where Carl left us on, one of the things that I've really noticed and what's been really
amazing through this process of like figuring out who's eligible
to be a badge holder who do we want to bring in as experts and who do we want to invite as
community members it's it's it's exactly that you know it's part it's giving our community a much
higher stake in getting involved with these decisions and with the Gitcoin ecosystem
as well as the grant, you know, Gitcoin grants.
So that's really exciting to me as well,
especially around donors.
Like they are donors that have been showing up
every single round, you know.
So how can we reward them and, you know,
kind of also just give them
a larger decision-making platform as well. So I'm really
excited to see how many community members show up to be a badge holder. We're going to be releasing
all that information this week on, you know, who is going to be eligible, who are expert badge
holders as well. And then we will be, we'll have some sort of way
where you can go check your eligibility
through a wallet.
So you can have a look at that.
But Rohit, are you still with us?
Are you being rogues or with us?
Because I know that you and I
have gone back and forth a lot.
And loud.
Yeah, I can hear you.
I'm around.
Am I audible?
Yes, I can hear you.
Great.
Yeah, I'm curious from Lau and Rohit, what are your thoughts around badge holders? Is there anything that you'd like
to add there on how we're going to be rolling this out over the next couple of weeks?
Yeah, I think I really like the idea of expert badge holders. And I think as a public goods
funding ecosystem as a whole, we need to learn from different funding programs. And I think if I remember it right, it was our PGF 5 where Optimism did use expert batch
holders and we were able to see much more opinionated capital allocation based on the
context and the background each of these expert batch holders brought to the table versus
like a more flatter allocation of funding.
So I'm excited to see how that diversity
and knowledge amongst the different badge holders
can help fairly evaluate impact
across the many different projects.
Especially it's not just enough
to have a diverse set of metrics,
but we also need more diversity in knowledge and experience
and background to be able to weigh those different metrics properly.
So that's one piece that excites me.
And also the fact that we are able to include more multiplicity in the perspectives by also
having donors who have been experienced and been with the ecosystem since GG18 around.
I think just being a donor in a round and evaluating, going through different projects just helps you get much more closer.
So it's a nice way to reward folks who have been doing that grant after grant over time
and have them to be in the driving seat as a batch holder.
So yeah, those are the two things that I'm excited about.
Yeah, I agree with some of the points that Rahit made.
And I especially believe that
given what Gitcoin is trying to achieve,
which is have more,
just as Carl was mentioning, have more people come out and donate to multiple projects, a plurality of projects, which is actually what's needed for the Ethereum ecosystem to thrive long term we need a diversity of projects being around and delivering value to the community so I think having multiple people from the community who
have over and over showed up selected and donated to different projects
throughout rounds is a really good way to reward this behavior that
benefits the ecosystem and that we want to see more of. It also brings in their perspective and
knowledge, having gone through so many different rounds, seen so many different projects participating,
read through how they have evolved, how they've gone from being smaller projects to delivering reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, badge holders, I think it's so useful to have a very diverse set of people from different spaces
contributing, right? Because I remember Matilda, we were talking about this earlier at the beginning
of the year. Many of these open source software tools or primitives serve very different audiences in very different niches.
So not one person is going to be,
if we only had like a subset of people that are working in compilers
or people that are only focused on languages,
it's going to be very hard for them to be able to evaluate
other type of open source software projects
that are generating value for a different type of ecosystem.
For example, the privacy ecosystem,
or the...
are focused on Ethereum as a protocol.
So having this diversity of voices, diversity of experiences is going to make it so much more rich.
It's also hopefully going to incite a lot more discussions and conversations between dispatch holders in terms of what type of other things should we be considering when we're evaluating projects? How can we find a way in which we're measuring the different contributions
that are still very valuable but might be applicable to a smaller subset of projects?
And so I think this will also, and I know we chatted about this Matilda as well,
I think it would be very interesting at some point
if Gitcoin were able to design this retroactive rounds
more specific to different niches,
considering that there's different,
the different tools and different open source projects
serve and are very relevant in their own spaces.
So I think that this initial set is going to generate a lot of information that will enable
new and different designs going forward and new experiments so that we can continue to improve
forward and new experiments so that we can continue to improve in delivering a more optimized
way of funding all of these different projects.
Yeah, I love that you brought that up, that last point, because it's something that I've
also been thinking of for a while.
of for a while. I've been thinking about a lot of stuff apparently, but it's also something that
I've been thinking about a lot of stuff, apparently.
was brought up in a, you know, as we were strategizing all of this, as you mentioned,
was how can we become a lot more specific with those niches within OSS that we fund? You know,
how can we categorize our rounds even more and what does a future like that look like?
our rounds even more and what does a future like that look like um that is something that
i decided not to you know push ahead for gg23 because we were already changing so much
and i think that exactly that we can use gg23 as a really strong like foundation for how we move
forward you know so as we can get the community
feedback we can look at all the data from this round um and then use that to you know continue
iterating and moving forward but it is one of my goals for the program is to by the end of this
year that we have those categories and that we do get to a place where we are outlining those
niches and funding them more specifically. So I'm also quite excited about moving into that future
as well. I just said data and we have Mr. Ben West on stage. Every time I say data these days,
I think about you laughing or just highly highly enjoying my accent how are you doing then
it's nice to have you on stage with us again it has been a minute no doubt wow you just said you've
been at gitcoin for three years that's 30 years in crypto time so uh congrats and that's so funny
that you just mentioned the data thing because i literally was just sending you a message on
telegram saying uh we have all the data in quotes.
So clearly I think about it all the time, too.
I just wanted to pass on my sincere praise and appreciation for what I am seeing happen here in G.
G. G.
G, what is it? G23.
What is it?
It's just really, really cool to see the evolution of what is going on at Gitcoin.
I am no longer working day in and day out with you, but my heart and my mind is still very much with this community.
And I'm excited to be one of the badge holders.
Thanks for inviting me into that process.
And so cool to see all the amazing projects.
You know, I've just gone through and, you know,
checked out a lot of the folks, you know,
who are in the various rounds.
And, you know, it's amazing.
You know, the projects that have been around for a while,
seeing that evolution and the progress,
all the new functionality that I'm seeing
in Checkr and elsewhere.
So yeah, I really just wanna raise my hands to you, Matilda,
and to everybody in the community.
Great to see you up here, by the way, Rohit and Carl
and Launa and Wasabi, thank you for all the help.
I know that you're constantly giving to community members,
including me reaching out on behalf of some friends
who were struggling with things in the last few days.
Yeah, that's really it for me.
I just wanted to say congrats and best of luck to everybody in this round and a big thank
you to all the people that I know are working really hard to make these rounds a reality.
There's so much work that goes on behind the scenes that, you know, people never really see.
But, you know, I definitely know from personal experience how much work this really is.
And that's even just for like a normal round, let alone when you've got all kinds of new experiments and things that you're trying.
And, you know, that spirit of experimentation is just so cool.
So, yeah, really exciting round.
You know, the future continues to be bright
for public goods funding, open source funding,
whatever you want to call it.
It's all public goods are good to me.
Much love.
Thanks, Ben.
Yeah, so nice to have you on a space with us again.
Yeah, it takes me back.
It takes me back to all the many, many spaces that we've co-hosted over the rounds.
But yeah, it's a big moment.
You know, it is a really big moment for Gitcoin Grants, GD23. accounts uh gg23 and um i again you know yes i am in the position i am right now but i
have not done any of this alone there's been so many consultants so many um you know strategy
sessions hosted with many people within the community as well within our team and there's
been a lot of improvements with our product.
We know that there were some issues that people were facing with applications. If you are still struggling with an application or with anything, you know, just reach out to us. Feel free to DM
me on Twitter. My DMs are open. You know, we're all here to help. And just, yeah, a huge shout
out again to Team Tiger. I i'm gonna spend the last few
minutes of the space just going through some housekeeping so maybe i'll throw it over to
rohit and lao um is there anything that you either of you wanted to add or shout out before i
do some little bit of housekeeping for the round
i think the only thing i would say and and this is more forward-looking, would be
we getting feedback from this round and getting to a point where the next retro round could be
co-designed as a framework with the community, including the badge holders and folks who are
closer to the retro round. This was, as you said, a Muthiland experiment.
And so it was more a close group of people
with context around data and grants coming together
to put this.
And hopefully we'll reach a point where we can be more
participatory in the design of the future retro round.
retro round so that's something i look forward to
So that's something I look forward to.
i have two points um the first one is it might be a little bit hard for people to
identify for people that are not expert batch holders so donors and um gtc holders to know that they are eligible to participate in the retro round.
So everyone that's listening, make sure that you get, that you verify your wallets and you get
all of your friends and the friends of your friends to verify your eligibility to participate
as a voter in the retro round. We want to make sure that people
are voting when they are able to. So just get everyone that you know to check if they are part
of the subset of people voting in the retro round. I'd say this is one of the most important things because we don't want just a few set of people to decide how the whole allocation is done.
And seconding what Rohit just mentioned, it's very important for the Gitcoin community to and what didn't work, that the team is
going to be able to make better suggestions. And also, just as was mentioned, for these to evolve
into something that can be co-designed with the community. So yes, those two things. Make sure
that you, your friends, and the friends of your friends are checking if they are eligible to vote in the ritual round. And second, make sure that you
voice out what your thoughts are on the design, because that's the only way in which it can be
improved. Yeah, I love that. Thank you so much for shouting that out, Lau. And I know this is
something that we've also been discussing over the last few days especially we will be
releasing that information on badge holder voting
like I mentioned badge holder voting is not live yet I'm actually quite
I'm happy that we decided to overlap a little bit just to give
the community a bit of time as well to kind of plug into QF and then plug into
badge holder voting as well like overlapping with our QF round. So we'll be releasing all that information
really soon. Keep an eye out on the, you know, on all our platforms, you know, Twitter, email,
like wherever we go, and as well as in Telegram. And if you're unsure, just reach out to us,
because again, we would love the community to get involved.
It's imperative to the badge holder voting.
So we'll be releasing all that information over the next few days.
And, yeah, I'm super excited for that to kick off.
Just a little bit of housekeeping for the round.
So, as I mentioned, QF is open. We are also doing, we've launched,
talk about experiments. We've launched many experiments. I can't even keep up sometimes,
but we have launched GTC staking for this round. So that is really exciting. You can go stake on your favorite projects, earn rewards,
and it also then brings them to the top of the project list if you go into a round.
You can boost grants.
You can earn rewards. Thank you.
