Funding Unlock Protocol’s Ecosystem using - RetroQF Grants + Gitcoins Grants Stack

lanzdingz · December 21, 2023, 4:48pm

Funding Unlock Protocol’s Ecosystem using - RetroQF Grants + Gitcoins Grants Stack

This proposal requests to use the 75k in Arb tokens given to Unlock Protocol Labs by ArbitrumDAO to help incentivize AND reward builders using Unlock Protocol in an open, transparent and democratic way. These 75k Arb tokens wil be broken down into 4 separate grant giving events (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4). This proposal is meant to earmark the funds, but a review will be conducted post Q1s first grant round to assess it’s impact and improve the process. Following Q2 launch we will assess the communities desire to move forward or change course.

This proposal was inspired by conversations during the open DAO community calls over the last few weeks, and further discussions were had in the #Unlock-DAO discord channel to help craft this proposal. Those discussions included: blahkheart - stellaachenbach - lanzdingz - Julien | Ʉnlock - ccarfi | Ʉnlock - ramitphi - Victorius - Zet | Cyberfallout .

We will leverage QF funding mechanisms to help retroactively fund projects that the community deems valuable to the Unlock Ecosystem. If you have seem or been apart of a Gitcoin round, this is the exact same process, just with a focus on the Unlock Protocol Ecosystem.

We will run at least 4 community rounds on Gitcoin’s Grant Stack, for projects and teams who have integrated and used Unlock Protocol in a meaningful and impactful way.

If this proposal passes, as a DAO we will construct the eligibility criteria for the rounds during our first DAO call following the proposal going through. From there we will put up another proposal for feedback on eligibility criteria.

Some examples of eligibility criteria:

Projects that have already integrated Unlock Proctol
Level of transactions/members/signups (including the necessary proof of that)
Projects that have not received more than X ($1 million as an example) in funding already
Projects that have not received more than X ($50,000 as an example) in grants from Unlock already

We want to find a way to meaningfully reward projects that have used Unlock for ticketing/ memberships and events, and projects that have integrated Unlock Protocol within their tech stack, in a way that is fair, at scale, and in public.

TLDR; We reward projects using Unlock Protocol and Unlock Protocol is rewarded through increased usage, transactions and ecosystem growth.

ROI and benefits for the DAO/Unlock Ecosystem:

Allows us to encourage more builders, creators, teams and projects to integrate Unlock’s tech stack into their projects, without needing to individually fund every grant ourselves
Unlock Protocol makes money from % fees generated through cc ticket sales, this helps encourage more teams to use Unlock for ticketing, subscriptions etc creating a positive feedback loop
This is a democratic way to give out retro grant funds to projects supporting the protocol and our ecosystem/DAO by extension
This opens up another grant-giving module that doesn’t require as much upfront energy and time from the DAO, but that still ensures the community helps determine which projects are the most deserving of retro grant funds
Only projects already using Unlock with be able to apply - a way to incentivize projects to integrate Unlock before the next QF round (a reason we will announce multiple rounds)
Allows all community members who wish to participate a chance vote through their donation (even $1 goes a long way with matching funds) * this also allows projects to raise more funds without the DAO needing to provide all of those funds
If successful we can continue on with the project and look for other ways to raise matching funds

This is a tested and proven funding model/system

Gitcoin has proven through various cycles that funding your ecosystem has win-win outcomes. It is what Vitalik used to build the ETH ecosystem in the last bear market, funding $50m worth of projects in the ETH ecosystem.

Now it’s available to use for any DAO. This proposal is to use the same tools to build Unlock Protocol’s ecosystem in this current market, without needing to use a high amount of treasury funds.

How it works:

We will divide up the 75K in Arb tokens into 4 rounds that we will run in Q1 (Jan) 2024, Q2 (April) 2024 Aug 2024, and Dec 2024. We are proposing that the first round runs with a 12k ARB matching fund, the second round being 17k ARB and third round being 17k ARB, the fourth round being 20k ARB (with 7.5k ARB earmarked for Round Managers and 1500 ARB as a buffer).

The idea behind this is to run a slightly smaller, but still meaningful round to help grow awareness, promote Unlocks work and reward past projects. Our goal is to then use this to help incentivize more projects to build with Unlock, with a focus on having more projects use Unlock Protocol for ticketing during ETHDevner. This will then continue with future web3 events. We will build a narrative that helps promote the awareness that Unlock Protocol DAO will be rewarding projects using our tech stack.

Timeline:

We will need 7-8 weeks to run each round with the first starting Mid Jan 2024:
Promote the round and educate people on QF grants w1 - Applications open w2/w3 (focus on recruiting grants- marketing the round, helping onboard new grantees/review all grants to make sure they are eligible etc)
Main crowdfunding round w3/w4 (focus on marketing grants, encouraging people to donate, running twitter spaces to help raise awareness etc)
Payouts w1/w2 (focus on a retrospective writeup for the community - sybil analysis, payouts etc)
Round managers will organize and execute the round end to end (I am a round manager + run the round manager training program at GreenPill - I will pull in a team to help me execute - typically 3-5 people) This will mean:
Setting up a round on Gitcoin Grants Stack and deploying the round
Helping market it to the Unlock and broader web3 community
Get contributors to sign up. Review that grantees are eligible based on predetermined criteria
Get ecosystem members to fund contributors, helping increase the amount of funding each grantee receives
Issuing the DAO a final report, sybil analysis & retrospective recap
4.if anyone is interested in learning how to run rounds send me a message discord and I can pass along training resources*
The round manager fee is 10% of the matching funds of each round

Next steps:

Once passed we will create the round criteria and get feedback from Unlock DAO and the community to ensure it aligns with the goals of the DAO and Unlock Protocol as a whole. We already have the green light that Unlock’s Marketing Team aka Chris with help us promote this and we’ll work together to make it a success.
We will apply to see if we can receive further funding from the Arbitrum Matching fund. [*Arbitrum is also incentivizing communities who run rounds on Arbitrum with increased matching funds. If this proposal is approved we will apply with the hopes of increasing our matching pool funds.
From there we will begin marketing and creating the resources needed to get the round started. The goal is to launch the round and have grantees be applying by Mid Jan, with the round concluding mid Feb. This will give us enough time to not only promote the 1st QF round, but also announce that we are committed to running another round in Q2, with an emphasis on rewarding projects who use Unlock for ticketing during EthDenver.
We will begin to track and measure the success/impact of this initiative (see below)

Suggestions made by @stellaachenbach for how we can go about measuring the success of this grant-giving method have been added in.

"How do we intend to measure the success of this initiative I suggest the following measures, which should be collected throughout rounds one to four:

We should measure the active participation in the QF rounds (how many projects/ people apply and participate actively). This would mean to assess the variety and innovative nature of the projects that apply and receive funding. This could include the number of unique applications, the diversity of project types, and the introduction of novel use-cases for Unlock Protocol.
We should monitor the growth on our social media channels (maybe we can create a custom hashtag for the posts we create in this context to see precisely how much engagement these ones get in retrospect and comparison). Essentially track the growth in the number of new members, active users, and overall network activity post-funding. This would reflect the broader influence of the funding rounds on the ecosystem.
We should also measure if we reach out to projects directly to apply to the QF how many of these projects actually will do it.
We should review the impact of funded projects on the community. This could include metrics such as user growth, increased participation, or enhanced engagement within the projects that received funding (so not us but them).
We should analyze the return on investment for the funding rounds. This can be measured in terms of the value generated by the funded projects compared to the amount invested (relates directly to the upper point).
After starting this initiative we should monitor new partnerships or collaborations that arise as a result of the funded projects. This can indicate the expansion of the network and the creation of value through new relationships. The same goes for media coverage of any sort. Investigating where new entities come from will be crucial.*
We should eventually compare the performance of these funding rounds with similar initiatives in other DAOs or organizations. This can provide context and benchmarking for the success metrics.*"

Upside: Jumpstart our ecosystem flywheel that creates value for the Unlock Protcol ecosystem in a way that rewards projects, creators and teams that are helping drive Unlock Protcol usage forward.

Risks: The round doesn’t yield the desired results *which is also why we’ve broken this 75k Arb into 4 rounds to help mitigate this risk.

Please let us know what your questions are if you have any concerns, need clarification or have any feedback.

Pending the discussion we will then move to a snapshot vote or work on updating the proposal.

stellaachenbach · December 21, 2023, 5:41pm

Fantastic proposal Lana <3!

My only doubt is about splitting the entirety of the 75ARB. I suggest instead we start with something like 20-30k for the first year. If the model proves successful, we can always delegate more. But to be fair, I am not sure what the comparison looks like and we might want to stand out with the amount we offer. Fair warning, though as we want to trigger intrinsic motivation it might be not beneficial to try and go in with the highest amount as a motivation.

Brings up the question of measures of success. How do we intend to measure the success of this initiative (maybe we should include these measures in the proposal as well)? I suggest the following measures, which should be collected throughout rounds one to four:

We should measure the active participation in the QF rounds (how many projects/ people apply and participate actively). This would mean to assess the variety and innovative nature of the projects that apply and receive funding. This could include the number of unique applications, the diversity of project types, and the introduction of novel use-cases for Unlock Protocol.
We should monitor the growth on our social media channels (maybe we can create a custom hashtag for the posts we create in this context to see precisely how much engagement these ones get in retrospect and comparison). Essentially track the growth in the number of new members, active users, and overall network activity post-funding. This would reflect the broader influence of the funding rounds on the ecosystem.
We should also measure if we reach out to projects directly to apply to the QF how many of these projects actually will do it.
We should review the impact of funded projects on the community. This could include metrics such as user growth, increased participation, or enhanced engagement within the projects that received funding (so not us but them).
We should analyze the return on investment for the funding rounds. This can be measured in terms of the value generated by the funded projects compared to the amount invested (relates directly to the upper point).
After starting this initiative we should monitor new partnerships or collaborations that arise as a result of the funded projects. This can indicate the expansion of the network and the creation of value through new relationships. The same goes for media coverage of any sort. Investigating where new entities come from will be crucial.
We should eventually compare the performance of these funding rounds with similar initiatives in other DAOs or organizations. This can provide context and benchmarking for the success metrics.

lanzdingz · December 21, 2023, 7:21pm

Thank you for sharing your doubts on the amount and the suggestions/thoughts around the criteria for measuring the success/effectiveness of it.

To answer this, we want the amount to be high enough that it can provide current Unlock builders with funds to continue building while highlighting to the broader builder community that Unlock Protocol is ‘open for business’ and it rewards its high-impact projects. But also we don’t want to just be throwing money around - we want quality over quantity. The ultimate goal is to fund the Unlock Ecosystem so that those contributing to it have the resources needed to keep building (and in turn creating increased usage of Unlock Protocol).

For example, if 30 projects apply, and each round is around 7.5k ARB (30k ARB for the year), an even split would see $250 - some projects would get more, and some would get less. That is a small token of appreciation for projects already using Unlock but might not be worth the time and energy to even apply (since they do set up applications). Figuring out the minimum vs what is too much is something we can look at and discuss.

These are excellent thank you @stellaachenbach, I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this. I will be adding these to the proposal and will tag your contribution to it. I think these are great starting points for the criteria.

stellaachenbach · December 22, 2023, 12:35am

Thank you so much for explaining in detail! That helps a lot !
And I am also glad that my additions were well received.

lanzdingz · January 5, 2024, 5:47pm

With ARB hitting new ATH’s I’ll be editing this to reflect the new prices and asking for less ARB tokens for the first (and following) rounds. If no further comments are going to be added I’ll move to a snapshot vote next week to get a temperature check on this.

ccarfi_Unlock · January 5, 2024, 7:02pm

+1 to the “don’t necessarily need to spend all the ARB in Year 1” approach, and also understand the need to make the grants meaningful in size.

esp since this is going to be using ARB tokens and there are some bits above in looking to get more from the ARB grants foundation as well, do grant applications in this round need to be on ARB in order to be considered for a grant (i think probably yes).

wonderwomancode · January 7, 2024, 10:39pm

+1 for reducing the size, I would say by half AT LEAST.

+1 projects need to be on ARB if we are using the ARB pool of funds.

Notes:

If we reduce the number of projects by limiting to those on ARB then we have to account for the fact that we will have to push harder to get projects up that are quality. We can always increase it later. Having spent a fair amount of time handling Gitcoin grant rounds for Unlock I want the community to understand that we will have to push to get new projects to apply. I reached out to dozens of projects on Gitcoin already to suggest they integrate Unlock contracts and apply for the Unlock grant on the platform too. I made sure let people who were going through our grants program that we were also on Gitcoin grants platform. We need to ensure we have a initiative to push for more quality applicants so we are not wasting our funding. I believe a draft of what that will look like should be included with the proposal. I love Gitcoin grants, they did bring some quality projects to the platform in the past or help me convince some projects to integrate our contracts. I would like to see us back up there.

lanzdingz · January 8, 2024, 8:21pm

making it so that projects need to be deployed on ARB to qualify is also something we can experiment with! Potentially we do that for the first round and see if it impacts anything. If it doesn’t then we can continue with that to help grow a relationship with Arbitrum further as well.

lanzdingz · January 8, 2024, 8:26pm

Great points - I will adjust the funding and maybe to start we’ll just ask for funding for 1 round, test it out, update based on feedback etc THEN propose for the next 3 rounds. This creates a safegaurd to hep us better understand what is working and what needs to be changed.

I do feel the next step is to work out what the criteria will be for the round - quality is important.

Based on some of the grant rounds you’ve run before, is there a working doc or criteria we could use as a framework?

In terms of marketing this yes I agree we will also need to make a push. The idea with running a few rounds is that in time we can build some momentum as well.

lanzdingz · January 9, 2024, 9:14pm

My proposed criteria to enter into the retroQF round - as to not rush this, but still have it in motion for EthDenver I propose we make it open to both events that use Unlock for ethDenver AND projects that have used Unlock on Arb in the last 6 months? That way we can promote it soon to encourage events to use Unlock for ticketing, but run the actual round the week following EthDevner.

Must have integrated Unlock Protocol into their project or used Unlock for ticketing
Must be deployed on Arbtrium
Must disclose amount of NFTs/Certifications/memberships/tickets minted (and point to proof) ***do we want a minimum?
Needs to write a brief description/how the project positively impacted the Unlock Community and therefore is eligible for the round
This is retro funding, meaning the project needs to have already been launched/event has already happened
Anything else?

We will verify to criteria during before approving projects to participate in the round + there is gitcoin passport enabled to help ensure the round isn’t sybil attacked.

Also proposing a 20% matching cap - what this means is that any 1 project can only acquire a max of 20% of the total matching pool (Example - if the matching pool is 8000 in ARB, a project can only receive a max of 1600 ARB in matching funds) this ensures that more projects can be rewarded vs 1-2 larger projects capturing all the matching pool (this also helps with social sybil collusion)