Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2010.01193 v3 pith:Y64AJZJ6 submitted 2020-10-02 econ.GN q-fin.EC

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords fundsmatchingrequirementsbehaviorefficiencyfundingidentifyparticularly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Social Choice Analysis of Optimism's Retroactive Project Funding

    cs.GT 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools