REVIEW 1 cited by
Quadratic Funding and Matching Funds Requirements
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In this paper we examine the mechanism proposed by Buterin, Hitzig, and Weyl (2019) for public goods financing, particularly regarding its matching funds requirements, related efficiency implications, and incentives for strategic behavior. Then, we use emerging evidence from Gitcoin Grants, to identify stylized facts in contribution giving and test our propositions. Because of its quadratic design, matching funds requirements scale rapidly, particularly by more numerous and equally contributed projects. As a result, matching funds are exhausted early in the funding rounds, and much space remains for social efficiency improvement. Empirically, there is also a tendency by contributors to give small amounts, scattered among multiple projects, which accelerates this process. Among other findings, we also identify a significant amount of reciprocal backing, which could be consistent with the kind of strategic behavior we discuss.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Social Choice Analysis of Optimism's Retroactive Project Funding
An abstract recommends the moving phantoms rule for RetroPGF funding on welfare and strategyproofness grounds, but the provided body is an unrelated topology paper, making the analysis unverifiable.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.