vitalik.ethOvjeren akaunt

It's also worth considering whether we're actually doing quadratic "funding" at all. It seems like quadratic *prizes*. Teams are being funded based on past work, not proposals for future work. IMO, this still achieves the goal, but there would be less drama with a prize framing.

Personally I'm hoping for a long-run equilibrium where most recipients are long-term teams, so the funding would be driven by the expectation that the teams would keep on doing good work.

Reading it, in the meantime - the link to Nethermind is broken - @nethermindeth

If donations are anonymized to prevent quid pro quo, won't that also eliminate the social benefits of donating? Anonymous contributions might eventually work in the idealized version of quadratic funding where funders are just paying market prices for the public goods they want.

We could keep some of the social benefit by making the scheme publish the *total* amount each person donated. Each person could then self-declare who they donated to but that part would not be verifiable.

You should check out http://ethsear.ch  @VitalikButerin. Round 4 essentially paid for upgraded servers for the search engine and a dedicated server for the crawler.

Wow. Even *you* managed to get the wrong end of the stick on the whole drama around my grant. Let me clear this up once & for all: I contacted @owocki & @gitcoin before submitting my idea for a grant and it was approved. The change came after the drama. Not before. Fin

I’ll take ownership of this - miscommunication was my fault. Rich did ask me if his grant/grant concept was ok(forget the exact wording) and I said yes flippantly. I should not have done that without thinking it’s precedent through.