The path you suggest makes sense to me, but as a builder of an analytics project for Uniswap (https://revert.finance), the Uniswap Grants Program has been rather unhelpful, not only in getting funds, but also on getting feedback for the grant applications. We applied three times, didn't get funded but also received no feedback from the program, even after repeated requests for it.

We should be thinking of the Grants Program as an experiment. How are we evaluating the results of the current decision making process? How do we minimize centralization there? If centralization is inevitable, how do we increase accountability for people running the program and discretionarily deploying DAO funds?

Here's a simple idea, currently the Grants Program discloses what projects it funds, not doing so would seem preposterous. Perhaps we should think of not disclosing what projects are denied funding equally as preposterous. The idea is that every grant application denial gets published along with the reasons for the denial, unless the applicant decides to withhold the publication. Would be great to read that people selected by the DAO for these important roles are thinking in those terms about their responsibilities.

Another idea would be that the DAO discards completely discretionary allocation of funds, like the Grants Program, and instead increases allocation matching Gitcoin grants for projects building on Uniswap.

The path you suggest makes sense to me, but as a builder of an analytics project for Uniswap (https://revert.finance), the Uniswap Grants Program has been rather unhelpful, not only in getting funds, but also on getting feedback for the grant applications. We applied three times, didn't get funded but also received no feedback from the program, even after repeated requests for it.

We should be thinking of the Grants Program as an experiment. How are we evaluating the results of the current decision making process? How do we minimize centralization there? If centralization is inevitable, how do we increase accountability for people running the program and discretionarily deploying DAO funds?

Here's a simple idea, currently the Grants Program discloses what projects it funds, not doing so would seem preposterous. Perhaps we should think of not disclosing what projects are denied funding equally as preposterous. The idea is that every grant application denial gets published along with the reasons for the denial, unless the applicant decides to withhold the publication. Would be great to read that people selected by the DAO for these important roles are thinking in those terms about their responsibilities.

Another idea would be that the DAO discards completely discretionary allocation of funds, like the Grants Program, and instead increases allocation matching Gitcoin grants for projects building on Uniswap.