Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trent
@trent
1/ New article /////// "Aggregation & atomization: dependency funding round dynamics" topics include: public goods vs dependency, impact, allocators, commons, @optimism, Retro Round 5, @protocolguild, Ethereum core protocol, @gitcoin, @octant + more https://trent.mirror.xyz/ia1sSXWw6Q_0gseWhPDpt0WbsOadCfQ-23yAxNn4sXA
1 reply
5 recasts
55 reactions
Trent
@trent
2/ The term “public goods” has been diluted - “dependency” might be better. Round-based funding mechanisms incentivize atomization - how can we avoid this? thanks to carl, cheeky, jonas, and @tim for review
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Trent
@trent
3/ We have failed to develop standards of rigor for the use of the "public goods" term. When it applies to everything, it describes nothing. “Dependency” is better for the Ethereum software ecosystem: crucial bits of infrastructure not directly maintained by an actor.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trent
@trent
4/ Recurring Funding Rounds come with tradeoffs - attention games - eligibility scoping - high expectations of evaluators - atomization incentive
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trent
@trent
5/ Reflecting on OP Retro Round 5 - incentivizing atomization - Legibility is not impact - Stewardship is less legible - for good reason - Misconceptions about levels of PG funding
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trent
@trent
6/ Possible modifications for rounds - Remove caps on allocations - Give special consideration to projects with a large number of beneficiaries - Cap projects per round - Explicitly weight the number of beneficiaries in the allocation formula
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trent
@trent
7/ Fin/ - suggestions have their own challenges, + come with deep @ProtocolGuild influence. your bias may vary =) - observations of @Optimism, @gitcoin, @OctantApp are here only because they are in the arena, funding the good fight ❤️🔥 Feedback welcome, thanks for reading 🙏
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
