Public goods & Quadratic Funding knowledge exchange

[yangwao]

We had chat with @kkukelka @petersopko who would like to study public good stuff and came up with an idea to found a board to pooling knowledge on quadratic funding and public goods

• David Hawig - Web3 Grants and the future of Public Goods Funding
• https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/grants-2-0-is-how-we-scale-our-impact/10015
• https://wtfisqf.com/?grant=&grant=&grant=&grant=&match=1000
• I can update the rest of the links here and scrape from DMs
• feel free to drop yours

[petersopko]

I've done some research, dropping this here:

More Resources:

• Brand new Public Goods paper from Vitalik et al., May 11th, 2022 Decentralized Society: Finding Web3's Soul -> previously discussed "soulbound" feature described in it
• GitCoin QF repo
• The way GitCoin retroactively dropped tokens for their init. QV here -> the process of deploying tokens is interesting
• Another useful paper by Vitalik from 2018 (good read when it comes to philosophy/description of the problem) Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds
• "Old institution Experiment" Colorado Tried a New Way to Vote: Make People Pay—Quadratically
• DoraHacks (old HackerLink) example of a proposal on Polkassembly which got (?) rejected, maybe something to learn from the exchange here
• Quadratic Funding V2 Protocol: Anti-Sybil, Fairness, and Scalability On-Chain DoraHacks medium blog post -> why is on-chain identity needed
• Quadratic Funding Pallet from OAK here (seems it's...not implemented anywhere?) -> this is where is their proposal on w3f gh
• Quadratic Funding Palet from DoraHacks -> can't seem

Questions/things to figure out:
(how to get to the Quadratic Funding ideal)

0. Token Airdrop From Gitcoin as inspiration, just a quote here:
The total supply of GTC is 100,000,000 (100M) tokens, broken down as follows.
- Retroactive Airdrop – 15%
- Gitcoin DAO – 50%
- Existing Stakeholders – 35%

1. KodaDao?
- DAO could be the next step for pushing KodaDot's decision (when it comes to development) into truly Public Goods / Decentralized mode. Quadratic Voting could incentivize creators/users to vote on the direction of further development and allocated Q funds would incentivize devs to work on specific features (introducing milestones here?)
- how to do this properly? Most DAOs use the catchy term but are not at all DAOs
- implementation -> further research needed. This will be timely once we have settled on the model

2. Retroactive token drop -> what mechanism should we use to determine the amount of token dropped? inspiration can be found here
- one thing bugs me, why is there this sentence? "And please remember — GTC has no economic value; it is a governance token used to oversee the Gitcoin ecosystem. It has no claim on financial rights." -> yes and no? The token is being traded, so it has some economic value https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/gitcoin . Since the coin is not bound to shares, that's what they meant?

3. The process to keep the tokens distribution going -> further research needed

4. Avoiding Sybil attacks with on-chain identity -> afaik, getting on-chain identity verified by a validator may be the prerequisite for participating in governance/voting

5. Voting on new features (functionality > design in the first place) -> introduction of Milestones. We could effectively do this now; I'd like to move from issues labeled Chief into using the Milestones feature of GH. Some of our Chief issues have 30+ comments, at which point they are becoming quite intricate for people not included in the initial conversation. The chosen name for this feature, "Milestones," is slightly misleading; the due date is entirely optional. https://docs.github.com/en/issues/using-labels-and-milestones-to-track-work/about-milestones

[petersopko]

https://github.com/DoraFactory/Quadratic-Funding-Grant-Pallet