YES for this! Congrats TEC community for being selected by Gitcoin!
Excited to see the grants machinery working full time with this huge incentive.
@enti you said to drop comments about the grants and projects; some thoughts:
min requirements that drive sustainable exchanges between TEC and the Proposal
â projects w. a structured plan to become useful for the community
â projects that have in mind to be accessible and inclusive
motivation could be a key requirement factor. how coherent is the proposerâs motivation to the proposal and its values?
looking forward to see projects that find creative methods to teach/ learn/ exchange knowledge
would be great to see a new TE tool amongst the proposals!
Loving this! Some of that is in line with what weâve been discussing.
As far as motivation, how can you imagine it being applied as a requirement, is there any signals you think may be useful to look after to pass our âmotivation scoreâ?
Currently the smart contracts and other pieces of the Allo Protocol arenât deployed to Gnosis Chain, though itâs on their roadmap. We could ask the Gitcoin team to get it deployed here, but hereâs our reasoning not to do so right now:
The Gnosis ecosystem is still very immature, from all native projects weâd probably be the only one running rounds in here. Thereâs also the chance that because of TVL/active addresses, grantees may not get as much donations, you can check some numbers here:
We want to be Partners of the Gitcoin Rounds schedule, which would let us tap into all the exposure/marketing their rounds get. Itâs a fairly bad user experience if from all the rounds on the âofficialâ schedule, weâre the only ones on a different chain (asking people to bridge, etc.).
We know Gnosis Chain is critical to get token utility into this program, but if we get this right we could end up running one of the largest rounds, which would certainly provide value too $TEC even if itâs not used directly. This doesnât mean that we are not thinking throughly of how to make all this work, but for now our best bet is to focus on donor/grantee experience and round growth.
TLDR; We just canât afford having such program rely financially on us, and with the immense amount of money going towards public goods funding programs it makes sense that we try to capture it.
With our common pool having just over $500k (which is used for multiple initiatives), and the $50k matching pool requirement to be a partner round, we wouldnât be able to do this program for more than a year, or even less. Think of how Gitcoin has re-granted, iirc, more than $5M, without necessarily putting much or any at all themselves.
If we can get fundraising right, weâll be able to secure a long term source of funding for token engineering projects! Thisâll come handy as we continue to burn money trying to find that thing that will make our economy generate enough to keep advancing TE.
Ah sorry, that was a placeholder, the forum post talking about that hasnât come out yet. Iâll link it as soon as itâs posted.
This was part of the challenge of passing these proposals in the midst of making the CV change. As part of the plan, we decided that this next cluster of proposals would be how we would test out Tao Voting for funding decisions - just to make sure we can actually make it work before turning off CV. Itâs a tricky set of moves.
this is very much out of our governance process and itâs unfair with the bonding curve proposal too. I see there was a test proposal there for 1DAI to @enti which would be enough for a test. I hate to bring a blocker and this proposal is SO important, but I think if we open a hole like this in our process we lose legitimacy. Sorry but Iâll vote no for it and I think it should be removed.
I understand now the time constraint with the Gitcoin round and I wonât challenge the proposal on Celeste. Itâs really crucial for us to move forward with this great initiative. It will pass tomorrow because it already reached quorum, so Iâll still leave my no vote there and my comments here as a signal. We should be more careful to not create double standards for different projects and respect our process.
Has there been any progress on the gtant application & acceptance process? you could try using a typeform to vet applicants like we used to do for Giveth, or perhaps integrate with our existing giveth project verification system.
Are we going to do have to an integration with gitcoin passport? I imagine so since this is using QF, but Iâm not sure how that will look on our platforms. Iâm working with Amin from Giveth to integration passport on giveth.io - happy to work together with you guys as well, I bet thereâs some crossover.
All the review process and Sybil protection is going to be done directly through Gitcoinâs platform.
For applications/review, as far as I understand, the protocol let projects make a single grant project to apply to multiple rounds. On our side weâd see those who are applying, review them and give them access if it meets our criteria.
Right, but afaik, passport is a pretty critical part of gitcoinâs new sybil resistance flow, so I image you would need to integrate it on the donation UI. Is that wrong? Or youâre just using their UI with you criteria for selecting projects in the round?
Did you already build out comprehensive requirements for this?
Sure, weâll make sure to keep everyone updated on how this goes. I donât think Iâll share like every minor detail, so if youâd like to be aware of everything on the background itâs probably best if you send me a dm
