Besides being a family man, Kevin is devoted to getting more money into the hands of public good builders.

At Gitcoin, they've been experimenting with the "Capital-constrained Liberal Radicalism" (or ‘CLR’) mechanism for funding public goods. The way it works is that the people vote with money, and then the "public fund" gets allocated to the most beloved public goods. Best part? The ones who receive the most from the matching pot are the ones with the most unique voters, not the ones who just received the most money. 

Kevin & peth get into:

• Gitcoin Grants
• The importance of decentralized IDs
• Good onboarding
• Measuring community value
• Community economics
• Interoperability

From division of labour & capital and the Matthew effect, to the principles of Bentoism - anything a metagamer cares about.

“What’s cool about crypto is that you can design systems where the returns waterfall is a little bit more equal between the capital and labour, and that balance between capital and labor is something that I’m super-interested in exploring the design space of.”

They also get into the difference between Gitcoin & MetaGame, concluding that they are essentially about the same thing - funding public goods & helping people earn a living - its just that they operate at different layers. While Gitcoin siphons existing money into good hands, MetaGame funds its public goods at the base layer.

In MetaGame, the only way to create tokens is through contributing work or knowledge, so the only way for people to invest monetarily, is to buy Seeds from the people who created them with work - funding past work, not future work.

As we are moving from proof of work to proof of knowledge work, how do we value that work? Is Sourcecred the answer?

Resources

• Gitcoin & Gitcoin Grants
• Experiments With Liberal Radicalism (grant program introduction)
• Vitalik's retrospective on Grants Round #7.
• Bentoism
• Sourcecred
• MetaGame