I voted for Goldilocks.
Rationale: I believe in a balanced approach that rewards a wide range of projects, favoring steady contribution and a multifaceted definition of impact.
I would have much preferred a less steep distribution. I don’t agree with the idea that impact should be considered in terms of a steep power law distribution, and I am sorry that the decision was made to prevent citizens/voters from voting in favor of a ‘flatter’ distribution, seeing as that seems to have been the tendency in the past.
The way I see it, ‘impact’ is not as simple as 1 onchain action/artifact = 1 unit of impact.
The ecosystem benefits infinitely more from a broad set of contributors than from a few big players.
While the big players should be rewarded for their large contributions, a diverse multitude of smaller players should be celebrated - their true impact lies in that very diversity because that is what creates a buzzing ecosystem that will attract more builders and users over time.
Conceivably, with a capped power law distribution like in this round, we could end up assigning all of the rewards to 20 projects - each hitting the cap of 5%. In this extreme (hypothetical) scenario, we would effectively be making the claim that no other contributions mattered. But what kind of ‘ecosystem’ would that be?
Note that if there were only 20 contributors we would see that hypothetical scenario. Now, how much more valuable (worthwhile) is a Superchain with 100 contributors? 1000? 1000000?
I do believe in trying to recognize and generously reward exceptional contributions, and I believe in retroactive funding of past impact rather than future promises - but impact is so much more than the achievements of a few ‘heros’.
True positive impact - even with a singleminded goal of raising TVL over time - is the addition of more variety and broader engagement; not monopolies and growing inequality of opportunity and a ‘winner takes it all’ mentality.