Just submitted my vote, I selected 3 metrics:
- 37.5% Logscale Total Transactions
- 37.5% Average Monthly Active Addresses (MAAs)
- 25% Recurring Addresses
Those choices definitely aren’t perfect, but here’s my thought process:
- I used “Logscale Total Transactions” instead of “Gas Fees” because I didn’t want to penalize projects whose services simply don’t require a lot of gas. I used the “logscale” metric because it gave a significant boost to “smaller” projects, who imo need it more. I realize this metric can be gamed (force users to make more txs), but over the long run open source projects wouldn’t be able to compete doing that.
- I used “Average Monthly Active Addresses” over “daily” because I didn’t want to penalize projects that are more like utilities.
- I used “Recurring Addresses” with a manually adjusted weighting (adjusted lower to 25℅), because although I believe it’s a valuable metric, some projects may not benefit from users using the same address each time (e.g. for OPSEC reasons).
- I chose to give maximum “open source reward multiplier” (3x), because of my personal desire for RPGF to only be for open source projects. That being said, I am concerned about the OS label potentially being flawed (as another badeholder shared above), but nevertheless still used it to signal my strong support for rewarding open source projects.
- The whole “trusted” user thing is not something I’d consider using in its current form, because I know I’d wouldn’t be considered a trusted user (“less than 5% of all active addresses on the Superchain”). Instead, it could be interesting to see trusted users account for a blacklist of “untrusted” users who have been identified as Sybil’s, scammers or the like.
- “Users Onboarded” is a very interesting metric, but I didn’t use it because it incorporates trusted users.
- I think one could criticize my choices for not focusing enough on network + user “quality”. I.e. I could see how a project employing a bot farm could receive a significant allocation from my choices. And that’s not ideal! But as mentioned earlier, I’m not convinced about using “trusted” users as a proxy for quality, so avoided it out of principle. And furthermore, I observed how my choices positively impacted the allocation for a bunch of smaller projects whom I would have happily allocated tokens to under the “manual” system used for RPGF 3, so that was good enough for me.
- AMAZING JOB ON THE UI. Future request: The “top ranked from your ballot” popup (when hovering over projects) didn’t seem too useful, would have been amazing if it included more details on the actual calculation, so I can easily see how my ballot impacted the allocation (if too complicated for the popup, then having it elsewhere would have been great too). Also would have been convenient for the popup to have brief info on the project itself, as well as a link to the project page.
- I still strongly believe revenue should be deducted from future rounds, see my comments about this here.
Overall I am very impressed with the changes made from RPGF 3 to 4, my congratulations to the OP team and everyone involved!