Network Funds Allocation
Last Update: November 29, 2022
How these funds are best allocated will be a perpetual challenge. There are many exciting ideas to explore and experiments to run.
This also limits core contract complexity and the exercise of centralized authority for the Geo Web multi-sig. The signers will simply be responsible for periodically transferring network funds from the Safe to quadratic matching pool address(es) and/or validated distribution contracts which to reflect the will of the community.
Other considerations and details that will be determined within the broader community:
- Round Cadence - A good initial target can be quarterly, but this may change based on the rate of accumulation of network fees and alternative allocation mechanism maturity.
- Round Structure - Main round, side rounds, geographic rounds, length, etc.
- Technical Infrastructure - Clr.fund offers permissionless use of their MACI-based QF solution. As of Q4 2022, Gitcoin is transitioning from its "c-grants" infrastructure to permissionless "d-grants" infrastructure and may offer QF-as-a-service offerings in time. Less robust tools like Snapshot (in the form of quadratic voting) could also be leveraged.
- Recipient Eligibility - Criteria for what qualifies as a public good and round-specific eligibility must be established and enforced. Should any public good qualify or should work directly relate to the Geo Web? Should QF funding be allocated by geography to embrace localized impact and voice? How should these change with the maturity of the project?
- Matching Eligibility - Contributing to public goods grants will always be permissionless, but QF relies on Sybil-resistance tools (i.e. matching eligibility requirements) to be effective. The arms race against Sybil collusion should play a big role in technical infrastructure selection.