My latest thinking around how we should solve the 3 key issues in funding mechanisms is to make git repos the unit of analysis rather than the brand or organization name So it's not Protocol Guild that would apply in rounds, instead we take each of their constituent repos as applicants for funding rounds How does this help? 1. A good rubric for assessing scalability of a funding mechanism is the difference between Protocol Guild & the next project If the difference isn't orders of magnitude more for the collection of all consensus and execution clients than the next project, it's an indication your mechanism is good for only up to 6 figures but not more So using repos instead of brand name solves the parts out problem where those who apply as a collective get less funding than those who break themselves into smaller units 2. Assessing repos is much easier than trying to make a judgment on a project, which ameliorates the halo effect around a brand If you need to answer how good grow the pie is, it's hard to figure out beyond vibes or general ideas But if you have to make a judgment on the utility of grow the pie's dna repository, that's much easier to be objective about 3. its much easier to create a list of the repos your project depends on (a dependency graph) than to identify projects & ask them to apply in your funding round before the deadline This solves the 'only crying babies get fed' problem where only teams spending < 30% on fundraising can have a chance of going through the hoops to secure funding Open source funding should stop happening at the project level and instead move down the stack to the repos that are valuable, enabling us to actually create the internet of value