Is completing a GOV Mission outside of the GOV RPGF round scope?

Thank you for taking the time to respond, @Gonna.eth . It’s very important for us to receive feedback, and we truly appreciate that you took the time to reply thanks!

That being said, we respectfully disagree with the interpretation that our work falls under “promotional initiatives.”

All of our contributions, particularly the university module, go far beyond mere promotion. We conducted the first-ever university course on Optimism governance, which included 14 sessions, projects, exams, and final evaluations. This program was integrated into the official curriculum of CENFOTEC, one of Costa Rica’s top technology universities. Labeling this as an “onboarding initiative” doesn’t seem accurate.

Does completing a governance mission not demonstrate leadership in governance?

Additionally, the definition of “Governance Leadership” includes I QUOTE: “demonstrated leadership in the Collective, including but not limited to, hosting community calls.”

LINK: Retro Funding 6: Governance - Round details

While we did host community calls throughout the year, our project went beyond just that; we facilitated governance processes through workshops, meetings, and successfully completed a governance mission to integrate Optimism governance into a university module, which aligns with “Governance facilitation of critical governance processes and/or experiments.”

How is recognizing our work breaking the rules when a single workshop session has already been approved?

With all due respect, and without intending to undermine any work, if a single workshop is eligible, as seen here:

CharmVerse - The Network for Onchain Communities,

We conducted both physical and virtual workshops. Additionally, we organized multiple events and a university module recognized by a leading tech institution—how does that not qualify, but a single session does?

We understand this was hosted by a council member, but does that make the workshop carry more weight?

We don’t intend to compare ourselves to a council member, as they are the ones who make not just this mission, but every other mission possible and much more. However, we do understand that when a council member applies, it’s far easier to approve their proposal than a Spanish-language initiative that you may not be as familiar with.

Our work had similar, if not greater, impact compared to other virtual events that were approved.

Why would our project fall under “explaining governance,” as quoted, while the approved workshops or virtual events do not?

Our team invested significant time, energy, and resources to successfully navigate bureaucratic and institutional hurdles to create this first-of-its-kind course. Since RPGF is intended to reward governance-related impact, this is exactly the type of initiative that should be encouraged and supported.

Our team has submitted an appeal. If, after reading this and our appeal document, the decision remains that we are not qualified for this round, we will respect that. We do not want anything that we shouldn’t be granted, we will follow the vision that the Collective chooses to represent. We simply want to ensure that all points are fully considered, properly justified, and publicly available.

If we are taking the time to write this letter, it is because we truly believe in what we are saying. That being said, we could be wrong, and that’s why we would love to hear a response addressing what was mentioned.

appeal: RPGF6 APPEAL - Google Docs

Thanks.
Ethereum Costa Rica
CENFOTEC
InBest

1 Like