Most of what was built in the web3 ecosystem was thanks to the open source movement.
It would be awesome to see the Foundation supporting other open source projects that made that happen.
My initial suggestion is a monthly donation of $1000 from the Foundation to a different project every month.
The project of the month could be voted by the community.
Candidates for the month could be posted to this forum with a text describing why that project should earn it, what is its relevance, etc.
Imagine if some of the gas paid for Ethereum transactions went to the smart contracts themselves, and from there to all of the open source libraries those contracts were made of.
This is interesting. Can you elaborate or give a few examples of open-source projects that would be eligible? How different would these projects be from those covered by the CGP?
I thought about projects that I use to build what we are building. Small to medium sized projects, those that are not super funded, independent developers, or small group of developers, that $1000 may make some difference, besides the recognition and appreciation.
GitHub has a nice system for that.
Couple of libraries that are awesome and I’d contribute below. But I’m sure every developer will come up with candidates.
I like the idea of supporting projects and builders that are not specific to the Cartesi ecosystem but are public goods that we utilize and have also had impact in the broader ecosystem.
I suggest providing resources so that linux distribution can build binaries to riscV architecture.
Usually the organizations that manage distributions accept hardware donations, and they manage the infrastructure themselves.
The relevance is that this would make the lives of cartesi application developers easier since it’s easier to use upstream binaries ready and not compile everything inside a docker/qemu or even the cartesi machine.
I like this idea, and would happily work on supporting it. I could see this as a way to consensually support the development of open source projects. How can I get involved?
I really enjoyed this idea! Onboarding projects are critical for any ecosystem, we could establish a range for donations and community feedback could gauge the amount donated per month. Ecosystem growth is currently following several projects building using Cartesi which actually would benefit from this initiative
To help structure this initiative and ensure its success, I believe there are a few key areas that need to be decided. I propose discussing these areas to establish a process that the Cartesi community can adopt and follow in funding public goods leveraged by Cartesi.
1. Nomination Process:
Both core units and the community could nominate public goods projects that they believe should participate in the round to receive funding for their efforts in building impactful public goods that Cartesi leverages.
Proposed nomination window: 10 days
2. Eligibility:
For projects to be eligible for this donation:
They should be a public good that Cartesi leverages.
The community will engage in a Snapshot vote to determine which projects should receive funding during that round.
Proposed voting period: 7 days
4. Determine Voting Strategy:
Use approval voting for voting as community will vote from multiple choices.
5. Voting Cadence:
The period between Nomination → Snapshot Vote would take one week for each step. Therefore, grants rounds each month might not be favorable for the community. I propose the rounds happen every other month to reduce voter fatigue and encourage participation.
6. Number of Projects to be Funded in Each Round:
Given the possibility that funding rounds might not happen every month, I suggest the community votes to fund top 2-5 projects per round.
7. Donation Setup and KYC Questions:
We should explore how payments for top projects voted are disbursed, as we should safely assume not all projects nominated by the community might have a donation setup.
Inviting feedback and suggestions on this from the community.
Thanks to @hellen for flagging this post as it relates to our work.
I’m Lucas from Drips, a decentralized toolkit for continuously funding open-source software dependencies.
TL;DR: We simplify funding your critical software dependencies and enable recipients to pass funds to their critical dependencies.
What is Drips?
Most public goods funding (PGF) mechanisms are essentially Lists. Think of Gitcoin QF Rounds or RetroPGF—the outcome is a list with percentage allocations totaling 100%.
We’re building on that concept with Drips. Here’s how it works:
Create Your List: Use our intuitive UI to add any ENS name, Ethereum Address, or GitHub URL of the repo you want to fund.
Send Funds: After creating the list, send any ERC20 token and schedule the funds to flow—this can be for 1 month or even 1 year. We don’t take any cuts, 100% goes to your dependencies.
Onboard Recipients: We ask recipients to create their own lists and pass on a portion of their incoming funds to support their dependencies, creating a funding graph.
Shareability: These lists are easy to share, and anyone can fund them.
Other Points Mentioned in This Thread:
Voting:
We introduced Collaborative Drip Lists, allowing multiple people to vote on which dependencies to fund. Votes are cast, and the final list is published.
But, It’s flexible— You can use Collaborative drip lists, or choose the mechanism and tools that work for your ecosystem (some projects do it offline, using snapshot, or any other process that concludes on a list).
KYC:
Funding a GitHub URL ensures you are funding the right projects and maintainers.
@tuler mentioned funding Viem and WAGMI as examples. Both are already receiving funds via Drips. Here are Viem’s drip list and WAGMI’s. Both split 40% of incoming funds to their dependencies. Awkweb (core maintainer) and Wevm have been vocal about the impact Drips has had so far, here and here
If you’re curious to learn more, feel free to ask any questions. I’ll answer them myself or bring in the right resources from our team.