Seeking for clarification here.
For N projects/builders applied for the upcoming round, there will be at least N * 5 definite traceable onchain/opensource datapoints right? Or are there qualitative factors in play here?
And the only differentiating factor in the voting process seems to be the impact variables and weights of impact variables assigned by badge-holders.
So if we were to take it to the extreme, if all badge-holders agree on the same impact variables and assign the same weights, citizen house’s role simplifies to selecting a cutoff score while maintaining the budget constraints?
If such extreme case will happen, how do we ensure independent valuation amongst badge-holders? Or maybe “collusion” amongst badge-holders is not a concern?
Selecting impact variables may seem straightforward for badge-holders but assigning weights may be more difficult. What constitute as an optimal weight? As @LauNaMu pointed out in the Funding the Commons event, people have hard time recognizing exponential values.