The capital allocation space spends too much time on new mechanisms and too little on the eligibility of who gets to participate in a funding round Which is weird since eligibility is more important than distribution, even if numbers are off in a mechanism so long as all funds go to good projects a bit of variance doesn't matter But loose eligibility is a disaster since imperfect mechanisms would give money to incompetent or unaligned projects that get thru the cracks Take the GG23 round as an example How many of the projects in the image would you really consider as "web3 infra"? And what is their difference compared to libraries? The line between dev tooling/ libraries, web3 infra & dapps is blurred when it shouldn't be One reason that we don't focus on eligibility as much as allocation mechanisms is simply that it's much easier. Who should participate in a round is more opinionated & much harder to program in a credibly neutral way than "distribute X $ to N projects" Octant is leading the charge here, since their funding round only has 25-30 projects They earlier did snapshot voting 1 wallet 1 vote which I've criticized for being too easy to sybil In the climate epoch they gave power to CCN to decide Both were imperfect though, how do we better control eligibility into a funding round?