Collusion without coordination (emergent collusion)

### Discussion

During funding rounds there is a pattern:

Alice **posts** on twitter "I just **supported** X, Y, and Z on gitcoin". X and Z have a big following. X, Y, Z all **like** and **retweet** Alice's tweet. Alice's following increases because she gained visibility to the X/Z followers and also because twitter algo boosts her tweet. Y's like/retweet had minimal to no social impact.

Bob notices this pattern. Bob goes to Gitcoin and selects the projects to support that will maximize his social return. **It is effectively buying likes/retweets without actually coordinating with grantees.**

One way to solve this is to ban grantees from liking/retweeting or engaging sociall with funders for a period, and even after that period.

Another would be to donate **not directly** to X/Y/Z, but rather to "category A/B/C" .. the categories can be made high-resolution so that donaters' preferences are captured as much as possible. For example, instead of "Dev Tooling" category, there are "layer 1" (JS stuff) "layer 2" (solidity, truffle etc) "layer 3" (compilers, p2p libs etc). Or some other way of categorizing. The important thing is that each category is reasonably large (say, >=3 projects).

When Alice donates to Category A, she can optionally **rank** grantees within A.

**There could be an interesting algorithmic ways to interpret A's ranking of grantees in category A which can be factored in the QF formula**, as opposed to simply distribute, say, 50% of Alice's donation to her top ranked gratnee, 25% to the next .. etc.