The funding paradox is real. Billions in ecosystem funds from Optimism, Arbitrum, and Polygon are deployed without a clear ROI framework, treating 'public good' as a marketing term rather than a measurable outcome.
public-goods-funding-and-quadratic-voting
Blog
The Hidden Cost of Failing to Define 'Public Good' in Crypto
Vague definitions of 'public goods' in crypto lead to treasury capture by private goods, wasted capital, and community infighting. This analysis argues for clear, on-chain metrics to ensure funding accountability and impact.
introduction
THE COST OF AMBIGUITY
Introduction: The $100M Question No One Can Answer
The lack of a rigorous definition for 'public good' is creating systemic waste and misaligned incentives across crypto's funding infrastructure.
Infrastructure is mislabeled as a public good. A developer tool like Hardhat or Foundry provides private value to its users; calling it a public good conflates commercial viability with non-rivalrous, non-excludable utility, distorting grant allocation.
The evidence is in the treasury drain. Protocol treasuries and Gitcoin Grants rounds fund projects with zero sustainability plans, creating a dependency loop where builders chase grants instead of product-market fit.
This ambiguity has a price tag. Wasted capital on non-essential tools crowds out funding for genuine protocol-level public goods like PBS research or EIP development, which secure the base layer for everyone.
key-trends
THE HIDDEN COST OF FAILING TO DEFINE 'PUBLIC GOOD' IN CRYPTO
The Three Trends Driving Definitional Chaos
Ambiguity around 'public good' funding is not academic; it's a systemic risk that misallocates capital, stifles innovation, and creates perverse incentives.
01
The Problem: Protocol Treasury Capture
Without a clear definition, governance token holders can vote to divert funds from core protocol development to short-term, value-extractive initiatives. This turns the treasury into a slush fund, undermining long-term sustainability.
- Result: Core R&D is starved while speculative airdrop farming is subsidized.
- Example: Proposals to use $100M+ treasuries for liquidity mining instead of protocol security audits.
$10B+
At-Risk Treasury Value
-70%
Dev Allocation
02
The Solution: Retroactive Public Goods Funding
Pioneered by Optimism's RetroPGF, this model funds what has already proven its value, bypassing speculative grant proposals. It aligns incentives with measurable impact, not promises.
- Mechanism: A council or algorithm rewards past contributions based on verified usage and impact.
- Outcome: Capital flows to builders of critical infra like The Graph or Etherscan, not marketing hype.
Rounds 1-3
$40M+ Distributed
1000+
Projects Funded
03
The Trend: Hyper-Financialization of Everything
The crypto stack's default is to tokenize and financialize. When applied to public goods, this creates 'impact tokens' and convoluted incentive schemes that prioritize tokenomics over utility, attracting mercenary capital.
- Consequence: Projects optimize for TVL and token price, not user adoption or security.
- Evidence: The rise and fall of OlympusDAO forks and unsustainable $APY incentives for basic utilities.
100x
Speculative Premium
<1 Year
Avg. Protocol Lifespan
deep-dive
THE MISALIGNMENT
The Slippery Slope: From Public Good to Private Subsidy
Vague 'public good' definitions in crypto enable value extraction by private entities, undermining the ecosystem's foundational principles.
Public good funding fails when its definition is ambiguous. Grants for 'ecosystem growth' often subsidize private, for-profit ventures like proprietary RPC providers or closed-source indexers, creating a perverse incentive structure that rewards marketing over genuine infrastructure.
Protocols become rent-seekers under this model. A project like Optimism, which funds retroactive public goods, still sees value accrue to its sequencer and native token, not the common infrastructure its grants build. This mirrors the Lido dominance problem in Ethereum staking.
The evidence is in the treasury flows. An analysis of major DAO grants shows over 60% fund applications, not core infrastructure. This creates a hidden subsidy for venture-backed startups, while protocols like Celestia or EigenDA that provide verifiable public goods must monetize directly.
THE HIDDEN COST OF FAILING TO DEFINE 'PUBLIC GOOD'
Case Study: The Public-Private Spectrum in Recent Funding Rounds
Analyzing how recent infrastructure projects define their public good status, governance, and revenue models, revealing the operational and ideological trade-offs.
| Metric / Feature | Protocol A: 'Pure' Public Good (e.g., Gitcoin Grants Stack) | Protocol B: 'Capitalized' Public Good (e.g., EigenLayer, Celestia) | Protocol C: 'Private' Infrastructure (e.g., Alchemy, QuickNode) |
|---|---|---|---|
Core Funding Thesis | Sustained via grants & donations; no equity upside | Venture capital for protocol development; token captures value | Venture capital for SaaS; revenue from enterprise fees |
Primary Revenue Model | Grants Program Fees (5-10%) | Protocol Fees & Token Staking Yield | Enterprise API Subscription ($0.001-0.01 per request) |
Token Utility | Governance-only (non-transferable) | Staking, Governance, Protocol Security | None (traditional equity) |
Governance Control | Foundation & community multisig | Token-weighted voting (often concentrated) | Corporate board & shareholders |
Protocol Downtime Risk | High (funding volatility) | Medium (incentivized operator security) | Low (SLA-backed, centralized ops) |
Example Exit / Liquidity Event | None (perpetual non-profit) | Token TGE & Exchange Listing | Traditional M&A or IPO |
Developer Adoption Driver | Altruism & ecosystem alignment | Economic incentives & composability | Reliability, support, & tooling |
Implied 'Public Good' Definition | Non-rivalrous, non-excludable, non-profit | Decentralized, permissionless base layer | High-quality, foundational service |
counter-argument
THE MISALIGNMENT
Counter-Argument: Isn't Flexibility a Feature?
Ambiguous definitions create systemic risk by misallocating capital and obscuring accountability.
Flexibility enables rent-seeking. Without a clear definition, the 'public good' label becomes a marketing tool for projects seeking grants from DAOs like Optimism's RetroPGF or Arbitrum's STIP. This dilutes funding for core infrastructure like Ethereum client diversity or RISC Zero's verifiable compute.
Ambiguity destroys accountability. A protocol like Lido can claim public good status for decentralizing Ethereum, while its dominant market share creates systemic staking risks. This contradiction makes objective measurement impossible.
Evidence: Compare Gitcoin Grants, which uses quadratic funding for clear public goods, to vague treasury proposals in Compound or Aave. The former has a measurable impact; the latter funds speculative development with no defined success metric.
takeaways
THE HIDDEN COST OF FAILING TO DEFINE 'PUBLIC GOOD'
Takeaways: Building Anti-Capture Funding Mechanisms
Vague definitions lead to misallocated capital, protocol capture, and the erosion of credible neutrality. Here's how to design funding that resists it.
01
The Problem: Retroactive vs. Prospective Funding
Prospective grants (like many DAO treasuries) are political, speculative, and prone to capture. Retroactive funding (like Optimism's RPGF) rewards proven value but risks becoming a rent-seeking game.
- Key Insight: The time horizon of funding determines its vulnerability.
- Solution Path: Layer them. Use small, fast grants for experimentation, and large, verifiable retro rounds for scaling what works.
>90%
Of early grants fail
RPGF
Optimism model
02
The Solution: Credibly Neutral Selection via Markets
Remove human committees. Implement mechanisms where the market of users signals value, creating a harder-to-game definition of 'public good'.
- Mechanism 1: Gitcoin Grants quadratic funding, where many small donations amplify community sentiment.
- Mechanism 2: Protocol Revenue Splits, where a fixed % of fees is automatically directed to dependencies (e.g., L2s to Ethereum).
$50M+
Gitcoin matched
Non-Capturable
Automated splits
03
The Metric: Define 'Impact' with On-Chain Legos
'Impact' is not downloads or Twitter followers. It's on-chain, verifiable usage of the public good.
- Measure: Contract calls, unique addresses, total value secured.
- Tooling: Use Dune Analytics, The Graph to create objective dashboards. Funding rounds should audit these, not pitch decks.
- Precedent: EIP-1559 burn is a perfect public good; its impact is measured in ETH burned and fee market stability.
On-Chain
Only metric
EIP-1559
Case study
04
The Entity: Optimism's RetroPGF as a Cautionary Evolution
Optimism Collective has run multiple Retroactive Public Goods Funding rounds, distributing over $100M. Each iteration reveals new attack vectors and refinement needs.
- Lesson 1: Voter incentives are critical; badge-holding "Citizens" without skin in the game leads to low-effort voting.
- Lesson 2: Categorization prevents apples-to-oranges comparisons; infrastructure, education, and tooling need separate buckets.
$100M+
Total Distributed
Iteration 3
Latest round
05
The Architecture: Fractalize and Specialize Decision-Making
A single monolithic treasury is a single point of failure and capture. Fractalize funding into specialized sub-DAOs or networks with limited, focused mandates.
- Example: Ethereum Protocol Guild for core protocol development vs. Client Dev Fund for execution/client teams.
- Benefit: Reduces governance load, increases expertise, and contains corruption to a single silo.
Fractal
Design
Specialized
Mandates
06
The Endgame: Exit to Community via Sustainable Economics
Perpetual subsidy is not a public good; it's welfare. The goal is to fund projects until they discover a sustainable economic model (fees, token, service).
- Framework: Progressive Decentralization (a16z): 1) Make it work, 2) Distribute tokens, 3) Exit to community governance.
- Red Flag: Projects that perpetually rely on grants without a path to fee capture or protocol-owned liquidity are likely captured assets.
3-Stage
a16z model
Fee Capture
Exit condition
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall