The Case for Plural Funding Mechanisms

## The Plurality Thesis No single funding mechanism is optimal for all situations. Different mechanisms have different strengths, and a healthy ecosystem uses multiple approaches. ## Mechanism Comparison | Mechanism | Best For | Weaknesses | |-----------|----------|------------| | Quadratic Funding | Democratic allocation | Sybil vulnerable | | Retroactive Funding | Proven impact | Doesn't bootstrap | | Direct Grants | Expert evaluation | Centralized | | Streaming | Ongoing support | Setup complexity | | Milestone-Based | Accountability | Overhead | ## Why Plurality Matters ### Different Needs - **Early-stage projects** need grants, not retro funding - **Infrastructure** benefits from streaming - **Community projects** suit QF - **Research** often needs expert evaluation ### Risk Distribution - Multiple mechanisms reduce single points of failure - Gaming one mechanism doesn't compromise all funding - Experimentation can happen in parallel ### Knowledge Generation - Different mechanisms produce different learnings - Competition improves each mechanism - Cross-pollination of ideas ## Ecosystem Examples ### Ethereum's Plurality - EF ESP for direct grants - Gitcoin for QF - Protocol Guild for streaming - RetroPGF for retroactive ### Optimism's Evolution - RetroPGF for retroactive - Partner Fund for direct - Governance Fund for ecosystem ## Recommendations 1. Don't pick a single "best" mechanism 2. Match mechanisms to use cases 3. Invest in mechanism research 4. Enable interoperability between systems 5. Fund the infrastructure for plurality