The CLR funding mechanism is a great experimentation on public goods funding but not without flaws. With every experiment cycle the flaws needs to be find and process needs to be improved. Hereby i am proposing some suggestions which can improve Gitcoin CLR public goods funding mechanism for next rounds to come.
My Suggestions for public goods CLR funding
Here are my few suggestions which i think can improve the public goods grants system effectively. I invite community to improve or criticise the following suggestions.
Putting contributors money in escrow and only releasing to the projects once funding rounds end. The reason for this is bad actors can game the CLR system by routing the contributed money again and again in the system.
Suppose Alice sends contribution to the project of bob, bob send this to john then john send this again to the project and as a result get matched for more CLR funds.
With time the number of projects will increase , new projects in any funding round should be marked as such and may be given a separate space for easy exploration. As a result most of the latest projects havn’t raised much because of no easy accessibility.
To motivate people to fund new projects, a NFT reward system can be made , e.g those who fund maximum new projects gets a special NFT.
Old projects and specially most supported projects must furnish a detailed report on progress made and what they used grant money for so that repeat funders get more confidence in the project in long term and may contribute even more. Contributors will get rewards in NFT for repeat funding a good project.
Any project in gitcoin grants should be allowed to share resources with other projects. Suppose there are two gitcoin projects which are based on same city physically. Project A can provide physical resources like office space and system etc to project B. Shared resources will cut the costs and also make a great socially happening community.
Defining public goods
Grants needs to checked for if they fit the criteria of public goods and provided with a terms and conditions for the same. A community member highlighted this point by sharing some grants projects which are not accessible to whole public and only available for subscribers.
The goods which can’t be accessed by all is generally not a public good and the above case looks like a club good than a public good.
The projects needs to ensure that whatever monetisation or income generation formula they apply, the goods and services produced by them using gitcoin grants should be non excludatory. In case of profit generation try to give away a part of it back to ecosystem by becoming funder in CLR or any other way.
Awards for public goods
We can celebrate the good projects by hosting virtual awards using community voting every quarter , annually or monthly whichever deems suitable. Some awards category can be like
- Gitcoin award for innovation
- Best award for social impact
- Gitcoin award for best community member
- Award for best project
- Gitcoin award for best public good
There must be security measures to supress cartel behaviour. Gitcoin grant should not turn out like vote buying or bribing through tips or taking undue advantage from friends and social clout.
Promoting non clr public goods funding
It looks like most people are funding during only CLR mathing rounds but can we have a reward for funders for funding during non CLR period too.
I am hoping that i have made some good suggestions which might be incorporated in next rounds.
A good community needs to be progressive , should always be welcoming to new members and ideas, should self criticise it’s decisions for good future governance as there is no harm in accepting the mistakes and correcting it.
If you like or did not like any suggestions or ideas mentioned , please comment also don’t forget to participate in Decentralised Social Impact Hackathon.