Prospectus

An Assessment of the “Crypto for Good” Space

This project is designed as a definitive, critical assessment of the entire “crypto for good” landscape. Its primary purpose is to filter the signal from the noise, providing a clear guide for builders, investors, and foundations.

Objective & Intended Impact

• Core Goal: To systematically evaluate all claims about Web3 technology’s potential for positive impact, categorizing them to direct effort and capital effectively.
• Desired Outcome: To create a landmark document that brings clarity to the space, establishing a “before and after” moment. The aim is to stop the waste of time and resources on “confused or lying” projects and focus the community on legitimate, high-leverage use cases.
• Audience: The primary audience is the crypto/Web3 community, particularly those in the “crypto for good” sector. It is also intended for foundations, investors, and partners considering involvement in these technologies.
• Authorship: The document would be presented as an offering from the Gitcoin community, with advisory sign-off from key thinkers including Daniel Schmachtenberger, Vitalik Buterin, Audrey Tang, Glenn Weil, and Tristan Harris to lend it gravitas.

Proposed Structure & Methodology

Schmachtenberger emphasizes the need for a rigorous, multi-lensed approach to avoid ambiguity. He proposes three potential frames for the essay:

Frame 1: Problem-Centric

This approach starts with a well-defined problem and evaluates Web3 as a potential solution.

1. Define the Problem: Clearly articulate a specific problem (e.g., pricing negative externalities, preventing the spread of disinformation).
2. Define Criteria for a Solution: What would a successful solution look like?
3. Propose the Crypto-Based Solution: Detail how a specific Web3 technology or mechanism could address the problem.
4. Analyze Alternate Solutions: Compare the crypto approach to non-crypto alternatives (e.g., using the court system, traditional regulation).
5. Critique the Proposal: Rigorously analyze the downsides of the crypto solution. How could it be gamed? What new problems might it create?

Frame 2: Technology-Centric (Affordance-Based)

This structure begins with a core technological primitive and explores its potential outcomes.

1. Identify the Technology: Start with a fundamental Web3 innovation (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs, uncorruptible distributed ledgers, decentralized consensus).
2. Define its Affordances: What unique capabilities does this technology enable?
3. Map Potentials:
   • List the beneficial things that could be built using these affordances.
   • List the detrimental things that could be built using these affordances.

Frame 3: Claim-Centric (Veracity Assessment)

This is the most direct approach to the project’s goal of assessing the existing landscape.

1. List All Claims: Compile an exhaustive list of existing “crypto for good” claims (e.g., solving public goods funding, ensuring provenance for conflict-free minerals).
2. Formalize the Claims: Deconstruct each “squishy” claim to make its implicit assumptions explicit (i.e., “What problem is it claiming to solve, and via what technological affordance?”).
3. Categorize the Claims: Group the claims by type (e.g., anti-corruption, privacy enhancement, democratic participation).
4. Conduct a Veracity Check: Assess each claim’s legitimacy, sorting them into categories:
   • Bunk: The claim is unfounded or nonsensical.
   • Inefficient: The claim is valid, but the problem can be solved just as well or better with simpler, non-crypto technology.
   • Legitimate: The technology offers a uniquely powerful and superior solution to the problem.