🆕 owocki draft scorecard gives "DeSci – Gitcoin 3.0" localism proposal 8/14, notes potential but flags cofunding, execution and measurement risks
owocki’s Draft Scorecard (Version 0.1.1, dated 2025/08/18) evaluates the “DeSci - Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking report” proposal to run a DeSci localism round using regional partners, nominated reviewers with COI declarations, and Gitcoin infrastructure (scored 8/14, 70% confidence), finding potential to surface high‑context DeSci projects and create a repeatable playbook if anchor cofunders and layered impact tracking are secured. \nBenefits: leverages experienced regional operators and Gitcoin’s public‑goods brand; Costs/risks: execution complexity, funding/platform dependencies, measurement ambiguity, and lack of firm cofunding or a crisp research plan; community reaction (single evaluator) is constructive but asks for confirmed partners, named reviewers, a cofunding commitment, contingencies, and a clearer report outline before October gates.
⏩ More details
owocki’s Draft Scorecard (Version 0.1.1, dated 2025/08/18) evaluates the “DeSci - Gitcoin 3.0 sensemaking report” proposal to run a DeSci localism round using regional partners, nominated reviewers with COI declarations, and Gitcoin infrastructure (scored 8/14, 70% confidence), finding potential to surface high‑context DeSci projects and create a repeatable playbook if anchor cofunders and layered impact tracking are secured. \nBenefits: leverages experienced regional operators and Gitcoin’s public‑goods brand; Costs/risks: execution complexity, funding/platform dependencies, measurement ambiguity, and lack of firm cofunding or a crisp research plan; community reaction (single evaluator) is constructive but asks for confirmed partners, named reviewers, a cofunding commitment, contingencies, and a clearer report outline before October gates.
⏩ More details
🆕 CowDAO opens CoW Grants Retro Round — submit RETRO ROUND proposals (deliverables, impact metrics, timeline to year‑end, track record); retroactive funding decisions Jan 2026
CoW Grants Retro Round is open for submissions: post a “RETRO ROUND” proposal in the grants forum using the standard template and grantee guide, specify deliverables, alignment with focus areas (solver infrastructure, dev tools, MEV protection, AI agents, UX), impact metrics, timeline through the end of the year, and track record. Benefits: channels work to priority areas and rewards impactful contributions retroactively with evaluation and funding decisions scheduled for January 2026; there are no community discussions reported.
⏩ More details
CoW Grants Retro Round is open for submissions: post a “RETRO ROUND” proposal in the grants forum using the standard template and grantee guide, specify deliverables, alignment with focus areas (solver infrastructure, dev tools, MEV protection, AI agents, UX), impact metrics, timeline through the end of the year, and track record. Benefits: channels work to priority areas and rewards impactful contributions retroactively with evaluation and funding decisions scheduled for January 2026; there are no community discussions reported.
⏩ More details
🆕 aura proposal: convert Ecosystem Fund to 12‑month fixed ETH stream to enable treasury investing; raises incentive misalignment and payment volatility (4 replies)
This proposal by philjfry seeks to streamline the Ecosystem Fund into a 12-month fixed stream to improve operational efficiency and treasury health and enable treasury investment strategies, but risks incentive misalignment and ETH-denominated payment volatility that could cause over- or underpayment. Community reaction is limited and mixed across four replies: one supporter praising efficiency and treasury benefits, and two critics warning of decoupled funding incentives and ETH stream “call option” risks, with no next actions specified.
⏩ More details
This proposal by philjfry seeks to streamline the Ecosystem Fund into a 12-month fixed stream to improve operational efficiency and treasury health and enable treasury investment strategies, but risks incentive misalignment and ETH-denominated payment volatility that could cause over- or underpayment. Community reaction is limited and mixed across four replies: one supporter praising efficiency and treasury benefits, and two critics warning of decoupled funding incentives and ETH stream “call option” risks, with no next actions specified.
⏩ More details
🆕 GIP-132 proposes $10k bounty to cergyk for disclosing Gnosis Chain consensus discrepancy; Nethermind fixed to match Erigon, averting potential ~40% GNO stake burn
- GIP-132 (Draft, created on 2025-08-18) proposes a one-time voluntary $10,000 bounty to researcher “cergyk” for responsibly disclosing a consensus discrepancy on Gnosis Chain reported on 2025-02-25 that could have enabled an attacker to trigger a chain split; Nethermind was fixed on 2025-03-17 to align with Erigon, avoiding risks including unfair penalties to Erigon validators or an inactivity-leak scenario that could have burned ~40% of all GNO staked. \n- Benefit: rewards responsible disclosure and prevented severe network/financial harm; Cost: $10,000 payment; Community reaction: no discussions and an on‑forum poll (In Favour / Against) created on 2025-08-18 with 0 voters, while core devs urge client diversity and Nethermind operators to move to minority clients.
⏩ More details
- GIP-132 (Draft, created on 2025-08-18) proposes a one-time voluntary $10,000 bounty to researcher “cergyk” for responsibly disclosing a consensus discrepancy on Gnosis Chain reported on 2025-02-25 that could have enabled an attacker to trigger a chain split; Nethermind was fixed on 2025-03-17 to align with Erigon, avoiding risks including unfair penalties to Erigon validators or an inactivity-leak scenario that could have burned ~40% of all GNO staked. \n- Benefit: rewards responsible disclosure and prevented severe network/financial harm; Cost: $10,000 payment; Community reaction: no discussions and an on‑forum poll (In Favour / Against) created on 2025-08-18 with 0 voters, while core devs urge client diversity and Nethermind operators to move to minority clients.
⏩ More details
❤1
🆕 Gitcoin proposal: Open Civic Innovation GG24 by omniharmonic seeks OpenCivics Consortium stewardship for multi‑mechanism civic‑tech grants; single evaluation urges clearer funding, scope, experts, timeline
This is a proposal by omniharmonic to create an Open Civic Innovation GG24 domain stewarded by the OpenCivics Consortium (Version 0.1.1 published on 2025/08/18) to fund participatory governance and civic‑tech projects via multi‑mechanism grants (QF, streaming QF, on‑chain impact attestations, peer validation, sub‑rounds). Benefits: could catalyze reusable civic infrastructure and cross‑project synergies on Ethereum; costs/risks: no secured co‑funding (~$50K target unmet), execution complexity, scope creep, and measurement/attestation challenges; community reaction is a single structured evaluation from owocki (score 10.5/14, 75% confidence) urging credible funding signals, narrowed scope, named experts, and a concrete timeline by October 2025.
⏩ More details
This is a proposal by omniharmonic to create an Open Civic Innovation GG24 domain stewarded by the OpenCivics Consortium (Version 0.1.1 published on 2025/08/18) to fund participatory governance and civic‑tech projects via multi‑mechanism grants (QF, streaming QF, on‑chain impact attestations, peer validation, sub‑rounds). Benefits: could catalyze reusable civic infrastructure and cross‑project synergies on Ethereum; costs/risks: no secured co‑funding (~$50K target unmet), execution complexity, scope creep, and measurement/attestation challenges; community reaction is a single structured evaluation from owocki (score 10.5/14, 75% confidence) urging credible funding signals, narrowed scope, named experts, and a concrete timeline by October 2025.
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin: owocki publishes draft steward scorecards and invites feedback; limited engagement and open questions on finalization, team changes, scoring-to-matching and vote schedule
owocki published draft scorecards after a first round of votes and invited other stewards to share scorecards or feedback ahead of a vote on fund distribution that will generally follow but not strictly mirror those scores, which could improve evaluation quality, transparency, and funding outcomes. \nCommunity engagement is limited (3 replies) and focused—sejalrekhan asked about a window for team changes, how drafts become final, criteria used, and how scores map to matching—and no vote schedule or link has been provided.
⏩ More details
owocki published draft scorecards after a first round of votes and invited other stewards to share scorecards or feedback ahead of a vote on fund distribution that will generally follow but not strictly mirror those scores, which could improve evaluation quality, transparency, and funding outcomes. \nCommunity engagement is limited (3 replies) and focused—sejalrekhan asked about a window for team changes, how drafts become final, criteria used, and how scores map to matching—and no vote schedule or link has been provided.
⏩ More details
❤1
🆕 Gitcoin proposal: create GG24 Enterprise Domain to drive Ethereum enterprise adoption — reviewers call for focused, co-funded pilots, named partners, and clear KPIs
This proposes creating a GG24 Enterprise Domain to drive Ethereum enterprise adoption via community-sourced problem statements, funded pilots, and public playbooks, which could produce reusable case studies and deployments if tightly scoped and partnered but risks diffuse research, delays, and wasted funds without named partners, co-funding, or a clear allocation mechanism. Community feedback (from 2 replies) is cautious and constructive—reviewers score low, demand 1–2 industry focus areas, named advisors/letters of intent, locked-in co-funding, clear KPIs and an execution plan, and recommend running a single tightly scoped co-sponsored challenge with milestone bounties to seed future work.
⏩ More details
This proposes creating a GG24 Enterprise Domain to drive Ethereum enterprise adoption via community-sourced problem statements, funded pilots, and public playbooks, which could produce reusable case studies and deployments if tightly scoped and partnered but risks diffuse research, delays, and wasted funds without named partners, co-funding, or a clear allocation mechanism. Community feedback (from 2 replies) is cautious and constructive—reviewers score low, demand 1–2 industry focus areas, named advisors/letters of intent, locked-in co-funding, clear KPIs and an execution plan, and recommend running a single tightly scoped co-sponsored challenge with milestone bounties to seed future work.
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin temp check: withdraw remaining PGN (~220 ETH + ~$900K) to Foundation with cooldown and outreach; community flags brand/timing risks, cites Aragon precedent
This temp check proposes withdrawing the remaining PGN funds (~220 ETH plus roughly $900K) back to the Gitcoin Foundation while implementing a cooldown and repeated outreach (X, Telegram, email, forum) to give users a final chance to claim via the bridge. Community reaction across 6 replies raises brand/trust and timing risks (notably owocki) and urges learning from Aragon’s post-withdrawal approach under Swiss law (per thedevanshmehta), so careful communication is the main cost to mitigate.
⏩ More details
This temp check proposes withdrawing the remaining PGN funds (~220 ETH plus roughly $900K) back to the Gitcoin Foundation while implementing a cooldown and repeated outreach (X, Telegram, email, forum) to give users a final chance to claim via the bridge. Community reaction across 6 replies raises brand/trust and timing risks (notably owocki) and urges learning from Aragon’s post-withdrawal approach under Swiss law (per thedevanshmehta), so careful communication is the main cost to mitigate.
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin proposal to pilot privacy-preserving KYC (ZKPs, verifiable credentials) in GG24 — seeks anchor funder amid technical and legal risks
This is a summary of a proposal to test privacy‑preserving, legally‑compliant KYC (e.g., ZKPs, verifiable credentials) within Gitcoin’s GG24 ecosystem to avoid storing raw PII, reduce centralized honeypot risk, and produce reusable open KYC modules; benefits include improved privacy and compliance confidence, while costs/risks include technical and legal complexity (OFAC/FATF retention), reliance on specialized zk expertise, no named implementation partners, no confirmed co‑funding, and uncertain six‑month deliverability. Community reaction (6 replies) is cautiously supportive and execution‑focused: on 2025/08/15 owocki published Version 0.1.1 scoring the proposal 10/14 (Confidence 75%) and urging an anchor funder, named partners, concrete milestones (e.g., GG25), UX flows, and measurable privacy/honeypot reductions.
⏩ More details
This is a summary of a proposal to test privacy‑preserving, legally‑compliant KYC (e.g., ZKPs, verifiable credentials) within Gitcoin’s GG24 ecosystem to avoid storing raw PII, reduce centralized honeypot risk, and produce reusable open KYC modules; benefits include improved privacy and compliance confidence, while costs/risks include technical and legal complexity (OFAC/FATF retention), reliance on specialized zk expertise, no named implementation partners, no confirmed co‑funding, and uncertain six‑month deliverability. Community reaction (6 replies) is cautiously supportive and execution‑focused: on 2025/08/15 owocki published Version 0.1.1 scoring the proposal 10/14 (Confidence 75%) and urging an anchor funder, named partners, concrete milestones (e.g., GG25), UX flows, and measurable privacy/honeypot reductions.
⏩ More details
🆕 Clarify whether funding for GravityDAO v3 Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report is a GG23 domain grant or direct funding; short demo requested (one comment from owocki)
This is a request to clarify whether funding for “GravityDAO v3: Paradox Management for Ethereum Governance - Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report” is intended as a GG23 domain grant or direct funding for GravityDAO, and to provide a short (<6 minute) demo of the GravityDAO v2 platform to inform evaluation. Clarifying scope and a demo would improve routing, assessment, and reviewer confidence; costs are not specified, and community reaction is limited to a single owocki comment asking for scope clarification and the demo.
⏩ More details
This is a request to clarify whether funding for “GravityDAO v3: Paradox Management for Ethereum Governance - Gitcoin 3.0 Sensemaking Report” is intended as a GG23 domain grant or direct funding for GravityDAO, and to provide a short (<6 minute) demo of the GravityDAO v2 platform to inform evaluation. Clarifying scope and a demo would improve routing, assessment, and reviewer confidence; costs are not specified, and community reaction is limited to a single owocki comment asking for scope clarification and the demo.
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin GG24: deltajuliet publishes domain evaluation and readiness filter — top-10 led by Metafunding, Ethereum For The World, Gitcoin OSS Domain
This summarizes deltajuliet’s evaluation and ranking of GG24 domain proposals, updated 19 Aug 2025, identifying common gaps (missing domain leads, weak co-funding, fuzzy mechanisms, light execution plans, neutrality risks), an eligibility rule of thumb (need confirmed experts/operators, committed co-funding, defined allocation mechanisms), and a top-10 leaderboard led by Metafunding, Ethereum For The World, and Gitcoin OSS Domain. \n\nThe benefit is a readiness-focused, neutrality-enforcing filter that should improve execution quality and accelerate on-time deliverables for funded domains; the cost is that many product-style or under-resourced proposals will be excluded or require further work to meet eligibility, and there have been no community discussions reported.
⏩ More details
This summarizes deltajuliet’s evaluation and ranking of GG24 domain proposals, updated 19 Aug 2025, identifying common gaps (missing domain leads, weak co-funding, fuzzy mechanisms, light execution plans, neutrality risks), an eligibility rule of thumb (need confirmed experts/operators, committed co-funding, defined allocation mechanisms), and a top-10 leaderboard led by Metafunding, Ethereum For The World, and Gitcoin OSS Domain. \n\nThe benefit is a readiness-focused, neutrality-enforcing filter that should improve execution quality and accelerate on-time deliverables for funded domains; the cost is that many product-style or under-resourced proposals will be excluded or require further work to meet eligibility, and there have been no community discussions reported.
⏩ More details
🆕 Proposal to create Spectra gauge for esdeUSD-3 (maturing 2026-02-06) on Avalanche to deepen liquidity and enable PT-Looping via Euler with K3 Capital
- Proposal to create a Spectra gauge for esdeUSD-3 (IBT: 0xb9003d5bed06afd570139d21c64817298dd47ec1) on Avalanche to deepen liquidity for esdeUSD (maturing on 2026-02-06) and enable strategies like PT-Looping via Euler in coordination with K3 Capital.
- Benefits: tighter esdeUSD liquidity, expanded DeFi strategy and capital efficiency, and stronger on-chain dollar adoption; Costs: allocation of emissions (opportunity cost of those emissions); community reaction: vote is ongoing with no votes recorded yet (quorum: 1).
⏩ More details
- Proposal to create a Spectra gauge for esdeUSD-3 (IBT: 0xb9003d5bed06afd570139d21c64817298dd47ec1) on Avalanche to deepen liquidity for esdeUSD (maturing on 2026-02-06) and enable strategies like PT-Looping via Euler in coordination with K3 Capital.
- Benefits: tighter esdeUSD liquidity, expanded DeFi strategy and capital efficiency, and stronger on-chain dollar adoption; Costs: allocation of emissions (opportunity cost of those emissions); community reaction: vote is ongoing with no votes recorded yet (quorum: 1).
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin review backs Rohit's Ethereum open‑data standards and analytics proposal but warns of unclear leadership, timeline and execution risk
On 2025/08/18 a review of Rohit’s “Open Data Standards, Infrastructure & Analytics for Ethereum” proposes a Gitcoin-funded domain to build open data standards, explorers, metrics and analytics across Ethereum L1/L2 to improve visibility, coordination, and institutional DeFi legitimacy. Benefits: could unlock high‑impact public‑good infrastructure via catalytic Gitcoin grants; costs/risks: high execution risk from unclear leadership, no named teams or co‑funding, potential duplication, and an uncertain timeline (recommended target: prototype or standards draft by October 2025); community reaction is limited—owocki scored it 10/14 with 60% confidence and urged forming a working group, clarifying leadership, milestones, pilots, and partners.
⏩ More details
On 2025/08/18 a review of Rohit’s “Open Data Standards, Infrastructure & Analytics for Ethereum” proposes a Gitcoin-funded domain to build open data standards, explorers, metrics and analytics across Ethereum L1/L2 to improve visibility, coordination, and institutional DeFi legitimacy. Benefits: could unlock high‑impact public‑good infrastructure via catalytic Gitcoin grants; costs/risks: high execution risk from unclear leadership, no named teams or co‑funding, potential duplication, and an uncertain timeline (recommended target: prototype or standards draft by October 2025); community reaction is limited—owocki scored it 10/14 with 60% confidence and urged forming a working group, clarifying leadership, milestones, pilots, and partners.
⏩ More details
🆕 Gitcoin interim ED proposes handing leadership to founder owocki to lead "Gitcoin 3.x" and accelerate decentralization; community vote underway
The Interim Executive Director of Gitcoin is proposing to pass leadership to founder owocki to lead "Gitcoin 3.x" while remaining on the Foundation Board, aiming to consolidate vision under the founder, accelerate decentralization of execution to stewards and the community, and maintain continuity of the Grants program; no explicit costs were noted in the proposal. The community vote is ongoing with quorum met: 69 voters cast 4,008,159.48 votes (For: 2,389,711.59; Against: 0; Abstain: 1,618,447.89); if “Yes” passes, owocki will be ratified and the decentralization roadmap pursued, while a “No” would trigger a search for a new Executive Director.
⏩ More details
The Interim Executive Director of Gitcoin is proposing to pass leadership to founder owocki to lead "Gitcoin 3.x" while remaining on the Foundation Board, aiming to consolidate vision under the founder, accelerate decentralization of execution to stewards and the community, and maintain continuity of the Grants program; no explicit costs were noted in the proposal. The community vote is ongoing with quorum met: 69 voters cast 4,008,159.48 votes (For: 2,389,711.59; Against: 0; Abstain: 1,618,447.89); if “Yes” passes, owocki will be ratified and the decentralization roadmap pursued, while a “No” would trigger a search for a new Executive Director.
⏩ More details
🆕 Scroll DAO proposal requests 440,000 SCR to extend Governance Contribution Recognition (retro May–Aug, forward Sept–Oct 2025) with 4‑tier scoring, 60% cutoff, KYC/KYB and Curia‑dependent payouts
A proposal by Bitblondy, Seiryuu, kevinknielsen, and Alex Sampson (Proxy) requests 440,000 SCR to continue and refine Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) for Scroll DAO delegates across May–October 2025 — combining retroactive rewards for May 1–August 31, 2025 and forward-looking rewards for September–October 2025, using a 4-tier performance scoring system (60% eligibility cutoff), KYC/KYB requirements, and Curia Forum Score–dependent metrics with payouts processed after passage in November/December 2025. \nThe program aims to increase high-quality voting, rationale, and forum engagement and to fund workshops/initiatives, but incurs budget, operational, compliance (KYC/KYB), and dependency risks (Curia score and call-tracking) that may deter delegates; community reaction is limited but generally supportive, with Curia recommending extending to December 31, 2025, switching to periodic payouts, a public dashboard, and adding “Delegate Retention Rate” as a KPI.
⏩ More details
A proposal by Bitblondy, Seiryuu, kevinknielsen, and Alex Sampson (Proxy) requests 440,000 SCR to continue and refine Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) for Scroll DAO delegates across May–October 2025 — combining retroactive rewards for May 1–August 31, 2025 and forward-looking rewards for September–October 2025, using a 4-tier performance scoring system (60% eligibility cutoff), KYC/KYB requirements, and Curia Forum Score–dependent metrics with payouts processed after passage in November/December 2025. \nThe program aims to increase high-quality voting, rationale, and forum engagement and to fund workshops/initiatives, but incurs budget, operational, compliance (KYC/KYB), and dependency risks (Curia score and call-tracking) that may deter delegates; community reaction is limited but generally supportive, with Curia recommending extending to December 31, 2025, switching to periodic payouts, a public dashboard, and adding “Delegate Retention Rate” as a KPI.
⏩ More details
🆕 Solo builder requests 150k–200k OP from RetroPGF Round 4 to scale free on‑chain educational and creative public goods on Optimism — single supportive reply
stephanschwab requests 150,000–200,000 OP in RetroPGF Round 4 to continue scaling a solo-built suite of free, open, onchain educational and creative public goods (books, multilingual texts, NFTs, comics, music, videos, DAO experiments, and an AI bot). \nFunding would expand accessible multimedia public goods and validate a solo-builder model while costing 150,000–200,000 OP; community reaction is limited but positive (single supportive reply from Kubik17).
⏩ More details
stephanschwab requests 150,000–200,000 OP in RetroPGF Round 4 to continue scaling a solo-built suite of free, open, onchain educational and creative public goods (books, multilingual texts, NFTs, comics, music, videos, DAO experiments, and an AI bot). \nFunding would expand accessible multimedia public goods and validate a solo-builder model while costing 150,000–200,000 OP; community reaction is limited but positive (single supportive reply from Kubik17).
⏩ More details
🆕 ENS shifts to coordinated co-funding with Ethereum Foundation, creates $160k Strategic Grants for >$50k projects and reallocates nearly half of H1 budget
ENS Public Goods Working Group is moving from siloed grants to coordinated co-funding with the Ethereum Foundation’s Funding Coordination team, creating a Strategic Grants bucket of $160,000 USDC for projects >$50,000 and already co-funding Vyper ($50,000), Remix Labs ($50,000), Fabric ($50,000) and DRC ($150,000) with matched contributions to stabilize critical infrastructure. Benefits: reduced duplication, more efficient allocations, and greater stability and ecosystem alignment if L2s and other funders join; cost: reallocation of nearly half of ENS’s H1 budget to strategic, larger grants; community reaction: no discussions reported.
⏩ More details
ENS Public Goods Working Group is moving from siloed grants to coordinated co-funding with the Ethereum Foundation’s Funding Coordination team, creating a Strategic Grants bucket of $160,000 USDC for projects >$50,000 and already co-funding Vyper ($50,000), Remix Labs ($50,000), Fabric ($50,000) and DRC ($150,000) with matched contributions to stabilize critical infrastructure. Benefits: reduced duplication, more efficient allocations, and greater stability and ecosystem alignment if L2s and other funders join; cost: reallocation of nearly half of ENS’s H1 budget to strategic, larger grants; community reaction: no discussions reported.
⏩ More details
❤1