Hello here are our questions for the onchain builders round of retro PGF…
In the past rounds teams building on the OP stack were given an ample amount of time to accomplish the set guidelines.
Guessing this is due to the nature of time constraints and lack of proper prior planning after the last round ended.
Many builders had been waiting to hear about the guidelines for this round but the cutoff of May 1st is too short of notice to pivot into a position that will qualify a project.
It would be great 
if there was more than enough time to accomplish these KPI requirements if there was foresight into the situation for teams who have dedicated their time & resources to building on the OP stack.
One 
thing that feels like it is missing in the retro PGF program is any sort of track record or accountability program for the grantees that receive funding from optimism.
We know that it’s not mandatory to track or determine how the funding should be spent from the retro PGF ecosystem. But it is still a very important task to be accountable for the funding that is received.
That being said, is there any sort of System that is set in place to take into account the projects that use their funding from the previous round to help fund their endeavors going into the next round.
Is there not any extra merit that is given to the teams that have used their funding from retro PGF to build in the ecosystem?
And is there any sort of accountability for those that take funding and choose to develop their projects on other chains that are not part of the OP stack with the funding they receive from optimism through the retroactive public goods funding mechanism??
When we first learned about this program, it had always occurred to us that using the funding that you received and putting it back into the development of your project would end up getting you more funding in the future rounds that you are part of.
That is something that we are not seeing any information regarding as far as the way that the OP is being used from retroactive public goods funding, or if any of the teams are reporting how the funding is being allocated…
A great tool that we have used and would like to recommend for the retroactive funding Grantees is the grantee accountability protocol. Also known as GAP by karma HQ built by @mmurthy and team.
We believe that this tool would help to provide clarity for badge holders when looking at projects for this upcoming season. This tool has also been integrated directly into the platform Gitcoin to help the history of Grant funding through their ecosystem. We would love to see this tool integrated with Agora cc @zcf @yitong and hope the idea is utilized in a way that relieves the badge holders from extra work during the round.
We are very excited for the season of retro PGF and will be following along as the application phase approaches.
This is just a few random thoughts that occurred when reading over the guidelines and digging in a little bit deeper that we thought maybe helpful. Looking forward to the future and building on optimism have a great weekend!