Retro Funding S7 – Onchain Builders – Eval Algos

Retro Funding Missions 🔴
,
12

First off, I’m excited to be part of another RPGF round, big thanks to Jonas and everyone at the foundation for your continued efforts keeping retro funding alive! Also excited to see Optimism continue to take big swings in the experiment that is RPGF. Next, thank you Carl and OSS team for the work on this, and for the extremely well-written writeup.

Here’s how I voted:

  • Onchain builders: Superscale
  • Dev tooling: Arcturus

I made these choices because rewarding projects that have already demonstrated significant usage and impact is exactly what RPGF is all about. That being said, I have concerns:

  1. Since projects are still signing up for the current measurement period, we can’t definitively see how our chosen algorithm will reward projects. While this reduces bias, it makes it difficult for me to understand how I am actually rewarding projects.
  2. I say this every round - I strongly feel that revenue should be deducted from impact. Not deducting revenue puts public goods projects which cannot generate revenue on unequal footing with other projects that can. To be clear, my intention is not to exclude projects that generate revenue, just to reward them less. I would love RPGF to incentive projects to maximize their potential to do good, as opposed to pursuing revenue opportunities. See here for my full thoughts on this.
  3. Why is there no longer an “open source reward multiplier”? Are all these projects open source? I understand that the multiplier received some backlash for potentially being flawed, but I still strongly believe we should prioritize rewarding open source projects.
  4. I’m not in favor of using Farcaster as a measure of users for Sybil resistance. My Farcaster address is unique to Farcaster, and I believe everyone should use one unique address per service for privacy and security reasons. Encouraging the use of a single address for all activities is risky and could lead to significant losses if not managed carefully. Instead, it might be worthwhile to consider a community-run competition to identify and exclude Sybils, scammers etc.
  5. You have given badgeholders extremely little control this round, which opens the program up to potential gaming. Inputs like stars or forks should not be considered, as they can be easily manipulated. If there is a lack of trust in badgeholders to make subjective judgments, perhaps we should replace them with a panel of experts.

Thanks for reading :saluting_face:

3 Likes