Hi from Gitcoin.
I regret that I’ve not had a chance to comment when this was first posted, and that most of the discussion on this post has focused on the discussion of “[clrfund] MACI vs [gitcoin] pairwise”.
Long term, I DO think it’d be meaningfully impactful to the ecosystem to speedrun some experiments to “the search for the best QF mechanism possible relative to our values”, but as people rightly pointed out above, we perhaps are nowhere near being able to run a real experiment on MACI & pairwise given the current setup. Perhaps it was naive to suggest this during our most recent CLRFund/Gitcoin brainstorm. Let me repeat back the reasons I heard from you all:
- As auryn noted “there are several UX challenges for rounds using MACI, as compared to Gitcoin’s current grants setup”
- as auryn noted “MACI is private by design, it reveals very little about the way that users interact with the system.” and “In concert, these two things make it very difficult to do comparisons between MAC”
- as yuetloo noted “the experiment result may show which platform has better UX, because that’s what visible to the users from the frontend.”
- as daodesigner noted it compares “[clrfund] MACI vs [gitcoin] pairwise” in a co-mingled way.
So lets take the (in hindisight, rather naive) idea to test pairwise & MACI off the table.
With that out of the way - I would ask to reorient the conversation to the reason to start with why. Why did we even start talking about doing this in the first place? Why do we care about interop between Gitcoin & CLRFund?
First, the designs that someone put together of Gitcoin Grants using CLRFund look deeply cool.
Second, In the proposal for GitcoinDAO to issue a 40k GTC Grant to CLRFund, the proposal listed the following reasons to engage:
- Extend previous friendly contact between Kevin Owocki and Auryn MacMillian to formally affirm that Gitcoin & CLRFund are friendly projects built around similar missions.
- Change the narrative created by other competitive projects working on the same domain. That is the misguided belief that we must have sharp elbows - boxing each other out from each other’s users and demonstrate loud social media clap-backs.
- It is possible that the goodwill between the two projects could be extended into a formal integration or partnership one day - especially with the Decentralize Gitcoin workstream gaining speed.
- By pushing new tech and solutions on top of QF (such as MACI), CLRFund can act as a testbed/testnet for future gitcoin features and visa-versa.
The proposal continued: It is our assertion that CLRFund’s implementation of Quadratic Funding is complementary to Gitcoin. Most notably, in the following ways.
- It is pushing forward MACI.
- It is pushing forward sybil resistance & collusion resistance.
- It is funding public goods in the Ethereum ecosystem.
- It is iterative and increasingly effectively proven itself, having run 7 rounds so far.
- Gitcoin Grants has funded CLRFund $33k in the past.
- The CLRFund has taken UI/design inspiration from Gitcoin Grants, and extended them to their decentralized QF protocol.
- Given that Gitcoin’s existing Grants product is centralized, and work to decentralize is ongoing, a partnership with CLRFund could be a fruitful way to accelerate the decentralization of Gitcoin Grants - and also to make Quadratic Funding in the Ethereum ecosystem more anti-fragile (similar to how there are many client implementations of ETH2).
<- end proposal text ->
I agree with the proposal author & I believe in the above statements.
The third & final “why do this?” from my POV: Our current our thinking has led us to an explicit embrace of Pluralism & Client Diversity in the public goods funding stack - both within the QF public goods funding space, but also through the embrace of Effective Altruism, NFT public goods, retro public goods & others. Our latest thinking on Gitcoin Grants 2.0 puts this pluralism into practice by proposing interoperability with other Grants/project registries.
So if we believe in the above “why”, then the next question to my mind is “what” and “how”.
With most projects we try to interopt with, we focus on
- social interop
- technology interop
- token interop
After the above discussion, I’m not sure what next steps (if any) the CLRFund community would prefer, but I am open to discussing direction together. Do others agree with our “why”? Why or why not? If yes, then “what” do we do & “how”?
My personal take is that the designs that someone put together of Gitcoin Grants using CLRFund look deeply cool + I like the idea of doing a small round together to send a signal to the market that were in it for the same mission & finding ways to coordinate. I also have a deep admiration for MACI intellectually & think it’d be cool to learn some practical zk stuff. But if the time is not right, or our values are too different, I understand also.
All my best,