PoolTogether

Charity Pool where proceeds go to charity determined by governance

I am proposing a stable coin pool (preferably USDC/DAI) where all the proceeds will go to charity.

The specific structure of the pool would be that it runs in seasons/long durations (1 month) and that at the end of the time period, the interest gained would be sent to a charity wallet decided by snapshot governance. 1-2 Weeks before the start of the next season, there can be a governance vote held to decide the charity wallet that will receive the funds at the end period.

For (random) specifics that may or may not be controversial

  • For the first pool creation, the charity will already be chosen, but following this, the pCharity (pool token) should be the deciding factor for governance of this pool instead of the POOL token. The reason I am suggesting this is so the donators (the ones making this possible) have full rights to decide where their money should be going
  • Following seasons, POAP should be distributed for donators based off the charity that was donated to
  • As I understand it, voting can influence on chain events. The voting before the start of the next season should list the charities, their website, and their public wallets. Within the voting options, there should be an option for “None of these charities”, which if it holds the majority of the votes, should resolve to having a default charity chosen (My personal choice is gitcoin)
  • If the pool does not receive enough engagement, based on community decision, I think the USDC pool should be taxed 1-5% on winnings (and reflect that in the prize. Currently the prize is 71k, but instead would show between 70290 and 67450 as the winnings for that week)
4 Likes

Some Charities that have verifiable addresses (first post so unable to link more then 2 websites

1 Like

This is a fantastic idea. I especially like that instead of rolling over the prize in the event ‘no charity’ is chosen at the snapshot, it goes to the snapshot. The point is to distribute the funds, not inflate the prize.

Anyway, i do have questions about who selects which charities and how many charities are eligible for the voting process? And how does the pCharity token get created? Does PT have the infrastructure to support a new Pool with its own ticket also acting as a governance token? Or would this need extra tooling and development? Also, i believe that PT protocol doesnt have the ability to distribute funds 100% to an arbitrary address just yet, but i think Leighton said this was being worked on.

The implementation of this may require a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) at PoolGrants. But im completely on board with the idea.

I believe that snapshot let’s you designate the token address and the block lockoff date for voting, so it should work fine. My suggestion was also in the cases of NONE OF THESE CHARITIES being voted, that it defaults to gitcoin grants instead.

This post was made cause I heard the delegate proceeds function was almost done.

The ability to simply implement this is under development right now and should be launched as early as this week!

2 Likes

How do you feel about my comments so far though. My main concerns are using the pCharity tokens as the voting tokens and the protocols capability to change the distribution address without issuing another pool

I love this idea. I think it would be nice to have possibly a separate charity pool for specifically development. Like a Gitcoin Grants Pool. I feel this could attract more people to the platform and it also helps the ecosystem. An example of how the prizes could work would be:

  • 50% of the prize pool goes to the Gitcoin Grants Matching Pool

  • The other 50% is split between 3 projects on Gitcoin that are voted for by the Pool Together Governance. If there are no clear winners for votes, it defaults to the Matching Pool.

I’m not sure if this is possible, but it would be an interesting way to help fund the ecosystem continuously

1 Like

I feel like that could happen in a manual way (sent to 1 wallet and distributed like that) instead of automatic. I do think it should be limited to 1 pool at the beginning as a liquidity test, and if it goes well, bring up a second proposal for more charity pools. There is also the opportunity to apply for gitcoin grants if we constantly have a pool runing donating