frankchen07

Verifying my Blockstack ID is secured with the address 1J8cSQPCYBY27C7tWkBmGy7bFiYfNoSqVK https://explorer.blockstack.org/address/1J8cSQPCYBY27C7tWkBmGy7bFiYfNoSqVK

frankchen07

Verifying my Blockstack ID is secured with the address 1J8cSQPCYBY27C7tWkBmGy7bFiYfNoSqVK https://explorer.blockstack.org/address/1J8cSQPCYBY27C7tWkBmGy7bFiYfNoSqVK

frankchen07

Assumptions:

1. Gitcoin Grants is a self-sustaining revenue stream.
2. Adoption has been strong enough since the release of Gitcoin Grants (along with CLR incentive matching) to consider charging a fee.
3. Users won't sidestep Grants completely to tip individuals outside of our network.

Problem:

What is a fair and sustainable way of earning revenue off Gitcoin Grants?

frankchen07

Assumptions:

1. Capabilities on Gitcoin to view organizations will also need to be built out alongside shared management and multi-signature capabilities (organization pages, less-hacky search by organization, organization pages).

2. Risks include the technical and product resources we are putting into Bounties, which currently is less likely to net us revenue.

3. It is a possibility that shared management and multi-sig are gated, premium items later in our subscriptions model testing.

4. Requested feature from many of our funders, but potentially not revenue generating.

frankchen07

evidence for the pros

"Unfortunately there were no communication between me and counterparty, since gitcoin platform doesn't offer it. The message worker submitted when accepted his job was shown to me on github comment section AFTER the work was already done, which is obviously too late. Gitcoinbot should post the worker's message immediately when job was accepted. However, it would be even better if there was real-time chat between issue founder and worker(s)."

"The most time-consuming part of participating in gitcoin (or open source in general) is the communication overhead. Most issues require some discussion before you can go heads down and code. It takes time to ramp up on a new project. I could see it might be useful if I can get a sense of how responsive the maintainers are for each project easily."

"The Discord channels were also great. I chatted with a couple of other developers and some of them even tested and reviewed my work before I submitted it. It made me feel like being part of an even

frankchen07

import pandas as pd
pd.set_option('display.max_rows', None)



'''
    cleans google contacts data
    input: 
        contacts csv
    output: 

frankchen07

Gitcoin Onboarding Pitch

Problem:

When a user hits Gitcoin, they're immediately bombarded by townsquare and a navigation bar up top that indiscriminately introduces them to the whole product suite of Gitcoin. New folks find this confusing, and returning users have to dig through a dropdown list or URLs in order to find where they're going. From the Gitcoin operator side, we have no idea what that user is on the site for, and serving an entire buffet of products lengthens the "time to value" for a particular user.

frankchen07

Gitcoin Hackathon Sponsor Feedback & Conclusions

Problem(s)

1. Paying sponsors don't feel exclusive & special, and feel like they're competing with other sponsors.

   • PoolTogether: "We will use bounties for sure, but probably will post our own hack on Gitcoin."
   • ETC: "I feel like our bounties got croweded out by other sponsors. Aave seemed to have alot of activity."
   • Blockstack: "We're price conscious, that does come into play, if we increase prize and cost of the hackathon, moving forward, if there was a way to host a hackathon, and not partake in the majority of the marketing (2k price tag, vs 6-8k), we would definitely return to Gitcoin."

• Zcash/ECC: "There were so many sponsors in one hack, the ROI was not worth it. What do we actually get at each tier? I expected analytics with the tier we had. The event planning and execution felt adhoc based on the level paid. The event started off strong with customer service, but it petered off hard, it felt like we got less and less servi

frankchen07

Gitcoin Job Recruitment Feedback

Main Takeaways & Agreements

1. We actually don't have 40k developers, only 2-3K are active at one time.
2. Agree that our data moat is the real way to sustainability monetize, not hackathon deals.
3. Agree with the assessment that hackathons bring in developers.
4. Agree that we hold a unique way of verifying users based on ACTUAL work done, not just resumes and what people can say they do, but ACTUAL actions on our platform, and work that is done.
5. Needed convincing, but can see that building a job portal serves a dual function of organization branding on Gitcoin's site, an incentive for even more developers to come onto our platform to actually create AND populate a legit profile on our site.
6. Re-iterating that our core competency is not only having user data, but being able to build a "project" portfolio on our site (like a LinkedIn + Github that people actually look at wrt live projects and demos).

frankchen07

currently, our verified users are determined by these factors:

criteria # 1

sms_verification = true and e.grant_contribution_amount > 1000 then 'verified'

1 makes sense to me as it tells us that you're willing to be "verified" or "identified" by SMS means, and that you're serious about funding open source. The only feedback here is we can figure out the best cut-off threshold for the grant contribution amount and how we want to divvy it up between rounds, or of all time.

criteria # 2