I voted no on this, because I feel strongly that “revenue” should be deducted as well. I also feel that a “no” vote is the most efficient way to instigate that change.
Let me explain:
My original dream outcome* for RPGF was that it would allow public goods projects - despite generating no revenue! - to be valued based on how much RPGF they’re expected to receive in the future. This could create a virtuous cycle where investors pursue investments in public goods projects that have the highest potential to do good, knowing that their “return” would come from RPGF. This would also allow these projects to create tokens, which would be valued based on expected future RPGF, providing earlier liquidity to founders and investors if needed.
Obviously for the above to become a reality, there needs to be significant and reliable capital available for RPGF, and I think we all hope that OP will get there…! 
But this dream outcome also requires RPGF’s eligibility criteria to allow projects to (1) receive VC investment, and (2) create tokens / do ICOs.
Now, given the above, and the fact that VC investments are a sort-of loan that needs to be repaid, I agree with not deducting that.
But as I mentioned at the start, I feel that revenue should be deducted. Not deducting revenue puts public goods projects which cannot generate revenue on unequal footing with other projects that can. To be clear, my intention is not to exclude projects that generate revenue, just to reward them less. I would love RPGF to incentive projects to maximize their potential to do good, as opposed to pursuing revenue opportunities.
I do understand that deducting revenue could get messy (having to attribute revenue specifically to OP/superchain usage), and might lead to creative accounting which muddies things. I believe this is partially why only OP grants were included in the proposed deduction, since such data is easy to get. I also fully realize that this proposal’s fallback is not scalable and will lead to inconsistencies in badgeholder voting, but that is precisely why I prefer it in the short term - since I know it will force us back to the drawing board to find a better solution asap.
So for the avoidance of doubt: I 100% agree with having deductions, and to that extent, this proposal is a step in the right direction. However, this proposal also codifies that revenue will not be deducted, which I disagree with strongly enough to vote against the whole thing.
*I realize my “dream outcome” may be naive, but that is why I wanted to become a badgeholder: to push in that direction! Until that disqualifies me from being a badgeholder, that’s what I’ll keep doing.