Pomelo Season 6 Analysis Report
Take a closer look at Season 6’s analysis and adjustments.
For the second consecutive season of Pomelo Grants, we saw low attempts to cheat and game the system.
The analysis and resulting adjustments caused $16,706 to be returned to the matching pools to be redistributed. This is about twice as much as Season 5, but still much lower than Season 3 or 4.
Read on to discover what we found and the resulting outcomes for this season’s $182K multi-pool adventure!
What did we find this season?
During the season, the Pomelo team received helpful reports from community members that aligned with our analysis findings. We did not receive any replies to our email offering a reward for evidence of rule breaking.
Simply put, the team identified two fraudulent grant applications during the review process, some Sybil patterns in donations, and two cases of self-donation. Donations flagged as Sybil and self-donations are not matched, which results in adjustments to matching pool distribution.
Grants disqualified during application submission
- CaptainBlackBill
- WIZZ NETWORK
These grants appeared to be known projects with established reputations in the EOS ecosystem, but were found to be fraudulent. The true owner of the project outlined in the CaptainBlackBill grant application confirmed he did not create the grant.
Grants with reduced matching allocations due to Sybil patterns
The following grants had donations with patterns of Sybil removed or collapsed and their matching allocation reduced.
- BitBeasts (−99%)
– A large number of different patterns of Sybil attack resulted in this grant’s matching allocation being reduced almost completely, from $8,807 to $102. - EOS Ecosystem Dashboard (−35%)
– Patterns of Sybil attack meant this grant had those donations collapsed.
Grants with reduced matching allocation due to self-donation
Pomelo Grants does not allow grant owners to donate to their own grants. The user interface prevents self-donation and team member donations from those accounts listed on the grant.
If self-donations are made through another account to work around this, the donations are not matched. In some cases and depending on the evidence, the grant may be disqualified.
The following grants had donations made from accounts that were affiliated with the grant owner. The donations were not matched and resulted in a reduced allocation.
Three other grants self-reported donations from a team member, and those donations were not included in the matching calculation.
General adjustments to matching allocations
When we remove the donations that are violating the rules, it broadly affects the matching allocations of many grants. This is because fraudulent donations are often made to a variety of grants to make them seem legitimate.
Some additional grants had their matching allocations reduced, and this does not necessarily mean the grants are malicious. On the other hand, some grants saw an increase in their matching allocations due to the removal or collapse of donations, which allowed some of the matching pool to be redistributed.
Another factor that contributes to increased matching allocation is when certain grants reach the matching cap for their pool. In these cases, if the pool’s entire amount isn’t fully distributed when donations close, the remaining funds are redistributed to other grants within the same pool. This happened in the Season 6 GameFi and Telos pools.
To see all the changes that occurred due to the adjustments and how this affects your grant, view the Pomelo Season 6 — Public Summary.
What’s next?
Appeals
If you would like to appeal an adjustment, send a description of the action taken and any evidence you have that supports your appeal to support@pomelo.io by August 8, 2023.
Claiming your matching funds
After the appeal period, qualified grant owners will receive an email with instructions on how to complete Know Your Client (KYC) screening, so you can claim your matching funds.
If you’ve previously done KYC for Pomelo, you won’t have to do it again and you can simply collect your matching funds when claiming opens.
Top 3 grants by matching allocation per pool
EOS EVM ($65,000) with 23 approved grants
- Number of contributors: 49
- Total raised, USD: $1,221
- Matching allocation, USD: $13,000*
Noah Swap, an innovation of DeFi on EOS EVM
- Number of contributors: 55
- Total raised, USD: $1,079
- Matching allocation, USD: $12,015
- Number of contributors: 48
- Total raised, USD: $1,077
- Matching allocation, USD: $11,964
EOS GameFi ($65,000) with 13 approved grants
- Number of contributors: 71
- Total raised, USD: $777
- Matching allocation, USD: $13,000*
- Number of contributors: 46
- Total raised, USD: $598
- Matching allocation, USD: $13,000*
- Number of contributors: 33
- Total raised, USD: $306
- Matching allocation, USD: $13,000*
Everything EOS ($28,000) with 63 approved grants
Social Recovery in the Recover+ Portal
- Number of contributors: 58
- Total raised, USD: $1,311
- Matching allocation, USD: $2,893
DAOBOX, an open source governance tool
- Number of contributors: 42
- Total raised, USD: $1,119
- Matching allocation, USD: $2,160
- Number of contributors: 35
- Total raised, USD: $1,635
- Matching allocation, USD: $1,967
Telos ($24,000) with 19 approved grants
- Number of contributors: 42
- Total raised, USD: $313
- Matching allocation, USD: $4,800*
Antelope Tools — Network monitoring dashboard
- Number of contributors: 19
- Total raised, USD: $1,054
- Matching allocation, USD: $4,800*
- Number of contributors: 38
- Total raised, USD: $112
- Matching allocation, USD: $3,957
* Indicates grant reached 20% of pool (matching cap for Season 6).
Activity by category and region
Season 6 saw some changes in which categories saw the most activity in terms of grants, contributors, amount raised, and amount distributed. Having a dedicated pool for GameFi gave this category a massive push, helping it achieve the highest percentage (29%). This was a huge increase over Season 5, where its share was less than 1%.
Infrastructure and Ecosystem Growth held strong with 21.1% and 17.1% respectively. Both DeFi (11.2%) and Developer Tooling (6.6%) gained some ground over last season.
Figure 1. Grants, contributors, amount raised (USD), and distribution (USD) by category
Figure 2. Grants, contributors, amount raised (USD), and distribution (USD) by region
Thanks to feedback from a community member, we made an update to our regions for Season 6. The region previously named “India” has been changed to “South Asia.”
North America gained some ground since last season to be on par with East Asia, with both regions at 30.2%. Europe held steady at 20.6% and the Middle East saw an increase from 2.8% to 9.8%.
Why do we do analysis?
Pomelo uses the quadratic funding formula to allocate the matching pools to eligible grants. This method requires accurate tracking of how many donors contribute to each project, including how many of those donor accounts are real unique humans and not multiple fake accounts created to game the system.
So after donations close, the Pomelo team audits the season results to identify any intent to exploit the system. This investigation includes following up on reports from community members.
The team focuses on ensuring grants follow the Pomelo Terms and Conditions, and where there is evidence of violations, makes adjustments. During a Pomelo season, rule violations primarily fall under offers and exchanges (quid pro quo), Sybil attacks, and collusion.
But that’s not all we look for. For more explanation of the rules with examples, see Pomelo Rules.
Season 6 analysis data
Compare to Season 5 report here:
