As researchers dedicated to the future of Web3 grants, we are excited to share our ongoing work on the Grant Maturity Index (GMI). This project aims to fill a critical gap in the Web3 funding ecosystem by providing a standardized framework to evaluate and compare Web3 grant programs based on their maturity.

The Persistent Challenge

In both traditional and Web3 grant systems, understanding who is providing funding, where it went, and what impact it produced remains a persistent challenge. Traditional grants have long struggled with issues like unclear objectives, unstructured processes, and a lack of standardized evaluation methods. Mechanisms like the World Bank's Government Technology Maturity Index (GTMI) have been implemented to improve the transparency and effectiveness of publicly funded research and development (R&D) projects. These systems face challenges that are surprisingly similar to those encountered by Web3 grants.

The Problem with Web3 Grants

Web3 grants are a relatively new phenomenon and lack a systematic framework for comparing and evaluating their outcomes. Despite some efforts to create frameworks for decentralized science (DeSci) and research on Web3 governance, there is scant literature on Web3 grants across various disciplines. This lack of exploratory and systematic literature presents significant challenges to Web3 grantors, grant operators at decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), as well as grantees, who can only rely on industry knowledge and informal guides.

Without a theoretical framework, the structure and benefits of decentralized grant programs cannot be reliably measured or tracked. This poses a problem for evaluating the utility of programs for allocating funding through distributed systems. Although decentralized networks are perceived to be more open and flexible than hierarchical and centralized structures, their inaccessibility to outsiders creates significant information asymmetries. If no systematic information is available for grant programs, the supposedly open processes become much more closed than they are believed to be.

Parallels with Traditional Grants

Traditional grants are defined as financial donations awarded by the contracting authority to the grant beneficiary, either tied to a specific action or unrestricted for the objectives of a specific organization. Similarly, Web3 grants often take the form of financial incentives provided by blockchain projects to encourage development, research, and community building on their platforms.

Grants in the Web3 space represent a substantial portion of ongoing investment, potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. However, many of these programs suffer from a lack of clear goals, consistency, and effective measurement tools to assess the impact and efficacy of their funding. This oversight often results in inefficiently allocated funds and significant scaling challenges. Industry reports consistently highlight these critical gaps, revealing issues such as inconsistent accounting practices, operational inefficiencies, and inadequate support and retention of grantees.

Learning from Traditional Models

It is possible to transfer knowledge from conventional grant programs to Web3 grants, as both domains share similarities in processes and face challenges such as lack of consistency, accounting transparency, and reporting. Research on the impact and efficacy of grant programs has led to various frameworks developed to optimize, measure, and track their outcomes. Examples include The Global Fund’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and Canada's Performance Measurement Framework, which apply key performance indicators and strategic evaluations to ensure effective fund utilization and impact assessment.

While these examples highlight potential improvements for grant management practices, the absence of formal, reliable, and complete data for Web3 grant programs makes it difficult to apply these traditional models effectively. The intricate relationship between DAOs and grants mirrors traditional challenges in treasury management and public finance. Concerns about nepotism and accountability in Web3 grants highlight the need for a robust tool like the GMI to hold protocol leaders accountable and ensure transparent, efficient grant management.

About Us

Feems has extensive experience in the DAO ecosystem, particularly in grants and governance, having co-founded the DAO Gov Collective ( a community of over 250+ members) . She has contributed to ecosystems such as Interest Protocol, Arbitrum DAO, and Gitcoin and is a member of the MetaGov Grant Innovation Lab and a Stewerd of Hats Protocol. Feems holds an MSc in Lobbying and Public Affairs and has experience working in government and global affairs.

Ben started his career analyzing the implications of EU cryptocurrency regulation and contributed to one of the first Ethereum-based DID methods. His excitement for Web3 infrastructure and procurement led him to join RaidGuild and eventually the MetaGov Grant Innovation Lab as the Consortium Lead of WID3+, where he focuses on crypto-economic procurement while pursuing his PhD at the University of Malta.

The team combines practical and theoretical expertise to develop the GMI, ensuring it serves grant-giving professionals as a robust tool for evaluating and improving their Web3 grant programs.

As researchers dedicated to the future of Web3 grants, we are excited to share our ongoing work on the Grant Maturity Index (GMI). This project aims to fill a critical gap in the Web3 funding ecosystem by providing a standardized framework to evaluate and compare Web3 grant programs based on their maturity.

The Persistent Challenge

In both traditional and Web3 grant systems, understanding who is providing funding, where it went, and what impact it produced remains a persistent challenge. Traditional grants have long struggled with issues like unclear objectives, unstructured processes, and a lack of standardized evaluation methods. Mechanisms like the World Bank's Government Technology Maturity Index (GTMI) have been implemented to improve the transparency and effectiveness of publicly funded research and development (R&D) projects. These systems face challenges that are surprisingly similar to those encountered by Web3 grants.

The Problem with Web3 Grants

Web3 grants are a relatively new phenomenon and lack a systematic framework for comparing and evaluating their outcomes. Despite some efforts to create frameworks for decentralized science (DeSci) and research on Web3 governance, there is scant literature on Web3 grants across various disciplines. This lack of exploratory and systematic literature presents significant challenges to Web3 grantors, grant operators at decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), as well as grantees, who can only rely on industry knowledge and informal guides.

Without a theoretical framework, the structure and benefits of decentralized grant programs cannot be reliably measured or tracked. This poses a problem for evaluating the utility of programs for allocating funding through distributed systems. Although decentralized networks are perceived to be more open and flexible than hierarchical and centralized structures, their inaccessibility to outsiders creates significant information asymmetries. If no systematic information is available for grant programs, the supposedly open processes become much more closed than they are believed to be.

Parallels with Traditional Grants

Traditional grants are defined as financial donations awarded by the contracting authority to the grant beneficiary, either tied to a specific action or unrestricted for the objectives of a specific organization. Similarly, Web3 grants often take the form of financial incentives provided by blockchain projects to encourage development, research, and community building on their platforms.

Grants in the Web3 space represent a substantial portion of ongoing investment, potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. However, many of these programs suffer from a lack of clear goals, consistency, and effective measurement tools to assess the impact and efficacy of their funding. This oversight often results in inefficiently allocated funds and significant scaling challenges. Industry reports consistently highlight these critical gaps, revealing issues such as inconsistent accounting practices, operational inefficiencies, and inadequate support and retention of grantees.

Learning from Traditional Models

It is possible to transfer knowledge from conventional grant programs to Web3 grants, as both domains share similarities in processes and face challenges such as lack of consistency, accounting transparency, and reporting. Research on the impact and efficacy of grant programs has led to various frameworks developed to optimize, measure, and track their outcomes. Examples include The Global Fund’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and Canada's Performance Measurement Framework, which apply key performance indicators and strategic evaluations to ensure effective fund utilization and impact assessment.

While these examples highlight potential improvements for grant management practices, the absence of formal, reliable, and complete data for Web3 grant programs makes it difficult to apply these traditional models effectively. The intricate relationship between DAOs and grants mirrors traditional challenges in treasury management and public finance. Concerns about nepotism and accountability in Web3 grants highlight the need for a robust tool like the GMI to hold protocol leaders accountable and ensure transparent, efficient grant management.

About Us

Feems has extensive experience in the DAO ecosystem, particularly in grants and governance, having co-founded the DAO Gov Collective ( a community of over 250+ members) . She has contributed to ecosystems such as Interest Protocol, Arbitrum DAO, and Gitcoin and is a member of the MetaGov Grant Innovation Lab and a Stewerd of Hats Protocol. Feems holds an MSc in Lobbying and Public Affairs and has experience working in government and global affairs.

Ben started his career analyzing the implications of EU cryptocurrency regulation and contributed to one of the first Ethereum-based DID methods. His excitement for Web3 infrastructure and procurement led him to join RaidGuild and eventually the MetaGov Grant Innovation Lab as the Consortium Lead of WID3+, where he focuses on crypto-economic procurement while pursuing his PhD at the University of Malta.

The team combines practical and theoretical expertise to develop the GMI, ensuring it serves grant-giving professionals as a robust tool for evaluating and improving their Web3 grant programs.