Quadratic Funding (QF) Working Group Proposal

Goals

Quadratic Funding (QF) is a funding mechanism designed to distribute a matching pool among multiple projects based on the number of unique contributors. Funds are distributed according to the quadratic funding formula, meaning that the most matching funds go to projects that have the greatest number of unique donors. The goal of QF is to make funds distribution democratic & inclusive, rather than solely left to the preferences of large donors.

Quadratic Funding has proved to be a very powerful mechanism for onboarding new users into web3, rallying the community around public goods, and generating significant funding for impact projects. Some benefits include:

  • Attracting new donors and projects to Giveth via community QF rounds
  • Onboarding large donors to Giveth to fund QF round matching pools
  • Giveth promotion during QF rounds from project fundraising
  • Democratic/inclusive distribution of funds
  • Filling in market gap for simple UX QF rounds
  • Generating revenue for Giveth through % of each matching pool

The Giveth Quadratic Funding Working group is working on building QF into Giveth, including developing the UI/UX, user testing, fundraising, marketing, launch & more! We are currently focused on building out MVP of QF, and following that hope to be running more QF rounds - for our own projects & for external groups - in an effort to support public goods projects to raise funds to meet their goals.

Giveth QF rounds will make use of our database for donation tracking, will be possible to include donations on any of our support chains (currently 5), will stack with GIVbacks and GIVpower, will outsource our sybil analysis / fraud protection, and will be highly customizable based on our & our users’ needs.

Team and Resources

@karmaticacid - Product owner, Product manager

@moenick - Product management support

@griff - Product Advisor

@msaeedi and @markop - Design

@Cherik @alireza7612 @ramramez - Frontend Development

@cquinterom096 @renjer @amin - Backend & Subgraph

@mitch @amin - Smart Contract Development (if applicable)

@maryam.jafarymehr - User Testing

@brichis @griff @yass @karmaticacid - Fundraising

@karmaticacid @oyealmond @Stee @missgene - Communications & Marketing

@whyldwanderer @NikolaCreatrix - Project onboarding

@franco @karmaticacid - Documentation

Duration :hourglass_flowing_sand:

Our immediate goal is to deliver the Quadratic Funding MVP which is expected as early as the end of July 2023. Next, following matching pool fundraise, we’ll run our MVP QF round (estimated early Sept 2023). Following that, we plan to be running quarterly QF rounds, into the foreseeable future (making development, UI/UX improvements as we go), and working with other partners who want to run QF rounds on Giveth at least through to the end of 2024, more likely beyond!

Initial 3 Month Deliverables & Budgeting

The DAO will have the opportunity to vote on which budget and corresponding deliverables the WG will focus on for the next 3 months. There are three options:

  • Grow - Increase the current scope and budget.
  • Sustain - Maintain the current scope and budget.
  • Shrink - Reduce the current scope and budget.

Grow :arrow_up:

What we will do :white_check_mark:

  • Develop & Test QF MVP
  • Develop & Test GIVstaking (Giveth Pro) MVP to integrate w/ QF
  • Fundraise $10,000-25,000 for the matching pool
  • Complete documentation
  • Support project onboarding to Optimism & GIV staking
  • Create & execute marketing and launch comms plan
  • Run MVP QF round
  • Create & execute round duration comms & marketing plan
  • Perform sybil analysis
  • Distribute funds to projects
Breakdown Estimated S1 Cost
Contributor Costs $51,825
Sybil Analysis $1,250 (or 5% of the matching pool)
Total for S1 $53,075

Sustain :arrow_right:

What we will do :white_check_mark:

  • Develop & Test QF MVP
  • Fundraise $10,000-25,000 for the matching pool
  • Support project onboarding to rounds
  • Complete documentation
  • Create & execute marketing and launch comms plan
  • Run MVP QF round
  • Create & execute round duration comms & marketing plan
  • Perform sybil analysis
  • Distribute funds to projects

What we won’t do :x:

  • Develop & Test GIVstaking (Giveth Pro) MVP to integrate w/ QF
  • Support project onboarding to GIV staking
  • Support project onboarding to Optimism
Breakdown Estimated S1 Cost
Contributor Costs $36,630
Sybil Analysis $1,250 (or 5% of the matching pool)
Total for S1 $37,880

Shrink :arrow_down:

What we will do :white_check_mark:

  • Develop & Test QF MVP
  • Fundraise $10,000-25,000 for the matching pool
  • Create & execute marketing and launch comms plan
  • Run MVP QF round
  • Create & execute round duration comms & marketing plan
  • Perform sybil analysis
  • Distribute funds to projects

What we won’t do :x:

  • Develop & Test GIVstaking (Giveth Pro) MVP to integrate w/ QF
  • Support project onboarding to GIV staking
  • Support project onboarding to Optimism
  • Complete documentation
Breakdown Estimated S1 Cost
Contributor Costs $33,930
Sybil Analysis $1,250 (or 5% of the matching pool)
Total for S1 $34,180

Approval Process

This WGP will remain available and open for Advice Process for 7 days, after which it will move to a Snapshot vote to decide the approved budget and scope.

8 Likes

Hey! Thanks for this proposal!

I’m curious here if there are any costs for software, subscriptions, platforms, tooling etc… that we are paying for to build and eventually maintain QF?

@geleeroyale might have an idea of what we are paying for at this moment.

I’d like to know aslo as to why project onboarding to Optimism is part of this working group proposal?

Also, I understood we’re outsourcing Sybil Analysis, this is with who?

Well QF isn’t using outside of our usual platforms and subscriptions required for the dApp. And TBH, I don’t know anything about the details of that.

I could work with @geleeroyale to determine what we’re paying for and somehow include it in the budget here… but tbh, it feels a bit out of scope as it should already be covered to maintain systems that have nothing to do with QF.

Well because Optimism runs Retro PGF, it would be strategic to make “have an Optimism recipient address” a requirement for project to enter the round. We could also distribute matching funds on Optimism network. This would help expand the usage of Optimism by getting more nonprofits on the chain.

Most of our current Giveth projects don’t have an Optimism address, and even running campaigns offering 20 OP as incentives to add an Optimism address hasn’t gotten too many projects doing it.

The onboarding to Optimism would be push from the comms/community side.

Trustalabs

Great to see this proposal.
I know it’s hard to quantify but do you have an estimate or any analysis of the impact QF might bring to Giveth: ie increase in donations or new donors?
Also, I understand a lot of these costs are for set-up. What do you estimate the ongoing operational cost of QF to be for each round?
It’s a fairly sizeable budget compared to other WGs, of course due to the new tech deliverables - would be good to get an understanding of what this investment might mean for future growth of the platform. Thanks.

Thanks for making this great proposal @karmaticacid

I see there is a significant difference between Grow & Sustain Budget.

I’m guessing that the main driver for it should be the implementation of Giveth Pro MVP. Can you share how much of this budget difference is due to Giveth Pro MVP integration with QF.

I think this is very valuable as token utility. However, I’m concerned it causes friction for projects. Will this MVP consider that third parties may stake their GIV to support projects?

I also think that onboarding projects to Optimism hold great value due to RPGF. But I’m curious about how are you envisioning the support to projects to onboard to Optimism & GIV staking & how much would it affect the budget?

Snapshot vote is live

@Cotabe - yeah the biggest difference between sustain & grow is Giveth PRO. The extra budget comes from design work needed by Mo/Tosin & Marko, Smart contract development by mitch & Amin, management by me, advise from Griff, plus development, testing, & communications. You can see the MVP spec here - it does allow third parties to stake their GIV to support projects.

I assumed about 10 hrs per month of extra Ashley time to accomodate onboarding projects to Optimism.

@clara_gr QF has been proven to be successful for Gitcoin. Their 1st round in 2019 was a matching pool of $25k and supported about 25 projects. 4 years later, in 2023, they’ve seen $50 million of donations flow to public goods in 105 QF round with 3.8 million unique donations. I have a pretty hacky/rough spreadsheet with some interesting links here if you want to learn more.

FYI I’ve been put under some pressure from Griff/fundraising trying to get our MVP launched by July 18 (in 8 days) with a reduced scope. $10k matching pool, 50 projects, funds distributed on gnosis. The idea is to have a proof of concept out so that we don’t lose over 2+ months of possible fundraising opportunities due to Gitcoin’s round in August (we wouldn’t want to run it then) and burning man in September.

1 Like

Thanks for the numbers. Proof of concept with reduced scope to test the water and schedule around Aug/Sep events makes sense to me.

1 Like

The people voted to sustain: Snapshot

Hey @karmaticacid - Looks like this Season Proposal was for 3 months and should have ended on October 17th - when can the DAO expect the next Season proposal?

This is cool to see!

@karmaticacid could you explain more about the tech stack of this implementation? Is the QF round happening on-chain or off-chain on a server somewhere?

Is the code open source? I’d love to have a look. Found this but I’m not sure if this is: GitHub - Giveth/giveth-dapps-v2: This project is the aggregation of GIVeconomy and Giveth.io DApps in a single repo

1 Like

Hey @samajammin - just seeing this now here. I know we’ve been chatting but to answer your question - yes! dapps-v2 has some of the code. Also impact-graph.

Hey @karmaticacid - Looks like this Season Proposal was for 3 months and should have ended on October 17th - today is February 6, this WGP is long overdue… when can the DAO expect the next Season proposal?

I’m not sure the WG proposal process as it is is efficiently/effectively meeting our goals. It’s great to have the retrospective & KPIs in one place, but it’s just honestly a huge amount of work to put together a good WG proposal, and it seems at least 50% wasted effort. In order for this to make sense:

  • All WG proposals would need to be posted at the same time so they could be compared
  • We’d need to have an additional explainer proposal outline projects we are still otherwise committed to completing, and an outline of the resources it is taking.
  • We’d need also to have a clear outline of the developer/comms/PM resources that are available for other work
  • We’d need a clear outilne of how much money we even have to spend on a season, and any other related prospects for funds coming in

The QF working group proposal for season 2 is here and while I think it’s really cool & interesting for everyone to be able to see some stats & info about what was done, I really think this process needs a lot of improvements for it to be effective.

Following up on this one from our Stewards call yesterday. Let’s try out putting up our proposals roughly around the same time and improving the Snapshot vote to make it easier to compare proposals and have it feel more meaningful. Maybe there is just one snapshot vote to decide the scope of the WGs in one go.

Let’s make this improvement AND MAYBE the following quarter we could even try WGs holding their own budgets! :exploding_head:

1 Like