# Retro Funding 5: Voting Rationale Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Retro Funding Missions\ **Tags:** round-5\ **Created:** [September 26, 2024, 10:01am UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-5-voting-rationale-thread/8922 "2024-09-26T10:01:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![cheeky-gorilla](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/bc41dd/user_avatar/gov.optimism.io/cheeky-gorilla/32/7231_2.png) [@cheeky-gorilla](https://gov.optimism.io/u/cheeky-gorilla)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 6:53am UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-5-voting-rationale-thread/8922/3 "2024-10-13T06:53:58Z")
First off, [here’s](https://gov.optimism.io/t/badgeholder-conflict-of-interest-disclosures/5569/46) my old but still accurate disclosure. With that out of the way, here’s how I voted: **Total Budget** 8mm OP (maximum) Why? Projects in RPGF 5 are existential for Optimism ecosystem. See my argument for not reducing budget [here](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-5-op-stack-round-details/8612/16). **Allocation** - Ethereum Core Contributions: 50% - OP Stack R&D: 35% - OP Stack Tooling: 15% Why? Although I personally believe there are a handful of projects in the “Ethereum Core Contributions” category that do not belong there, I chose to ignore that and weight the allocations based on how existential each category is to Optimism as a whole. **Allocation Method** I used a custom allocation method using my own spreadsheet, see [here](https://cryptpad.fr/sheet/#/2/sheet/view/fwHKFCWIrmKhSIZBeCmo5T1XLL2rlq6TZwOiShyyaDE/). See my reasoning for applying deductions for projects with revenue and grants [here](https://gov.optimism.io/t/ratification-of-profit-definition-for-round-4/8312/35). **Post-Submission Q&A** _How much time did you spend on voting in this round (in hours)?_ 20 hours _Please rate the voting experience_ 7 I was plagued by an annoying bug which I spent hours trying to fix myself (thinking it was an issue on my side), would appreciate better testing next time. Though to be fair, the bug was fixed in ~12hrs (on a weekend no less). Also “Allocation method” didnt end up being useful to me (apart from inspiration), as I used my own spreadsheet to create my weights. But glad I was able to import CSV! Overall despite the bug, better voting experience than RPGF 4, glad we got back a little bit more control over our ballots. _How worried are you about detrimental behavior among badgeholders influencing the allocation of Retro Funding in this round?_ 4 (somewhat worried) It is a worry, though I have no evidence that it’s happening nor did anyone attempt to bribe me. _Given the design of this round, how confident do you feel that OP rewards will be allocated efficiently to the most deserving projects?_ 3 Funding per project is capped, without taking into consideration the # of recipients. RPGF therefore biases towards average project size, meaning its beneficial when you have the smallest number of beneficiaries. Thus I think projects with smaller headcount will receive disproportionately higher rewards. I also strongly believe that grants / revenue should be deducted, and think most badgeholders probably wont do that. _To what extent did the “Grants and investment” information influence your token allocation among projects?_ 7 (had a large influence on my token allocation) I strongly believe that grants / revenue should be deducted, so I used this information heavily. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-5-voting-rationale-thread/8922)._