While I understand the sentiment, this need proactive work during voting, perhaps updating the operating manual to scope and define evaluation matrix.
An existing challange with DAO is one with louder voice gets an advantage over other even if their rational is false; availability heuristic . This gets more complicated when you have to convince very small group of people and even when you have influence on parties involved in that group.
We should and must support projects building on optimism as they are generating sequencer fees; the output, but we also need to focus on input.
Project A- secured 1M $OP in grant generating X amount of fee and Y number of transaction
Project B - self, community funded or without support from our DAO generating half of A
So, should we consider A as having a better impact and hence better reward? Aren’t we double funding A while neglecting B, Shouldnt this be the other way around? I am certian which option to choose unless badge holder operating manual defines the impact valuation framework otherwise.
A diverse group of badge holder, promoting reflection and awareness on the goal of RPGF(during voting, all hand calls are good but also on discord and other social platform) could help tackle challenge one, the second one will always remain a grey area just like the defination of public goods even after a plethora of research, debate and literature are clearly stating its scope.