Aggregation & atomization: dependency funding round dynamics

New article: Aggregation & atomization: dependency funding round dynamics

>>>>>>>> read the full piece, summary below

The term “public goods” has been diluted - “dependency” might be better. Round-based funding mechanisms incentivize atomization - how can we avoid this?

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.

Recurring Funding Rounds come with tradeoffs

- attention games
- eligibility scoping
- high expectations of evaluators
- atomization incentive

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

https://preview.redd.it/zlkqaqpd2cyd1.png?3720&format=png&auto=webp&s=74616256a8524d67ed4bb9c4314835f3cc0047bd

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

topics include: public goods vs dependency, impact, allocators, commons, u/Optimism Retro Round 5, @ProtocolGuild, Ethereum core protocol, @gitcoin, @OctantApp + more