With 1,594 applicants for RetroPGF 3, there was a need to run an Application Review Process whereby anyone could submit a report for an application that is in violation of RetroPGF Application Rules. Over 1,000 applications were reported for violating the Application Rules.
40 badgeholders participated in reviewing these reports and decided if an application is in violation of the Application Rules, these reviews took place between October 23rd - November 1st. For a full overview of the review process see the Application Review Process forum post.
Appeals Process Overview
The full list of applications that were found to be in violation of the Application Rules, and are due to be excluded from participating in RetroPGF 3, has been published here.
If you believe your application has been wrongfully excluded, and is not in violation of the Application Rules, you can file an appeal by November 3rd at 8pm UTC by using this form. (Note: you cannot edit your application during this period, only request reviewers take another pass at the content of your application as is).
All appeals will be reviewed by an additional set of Badgeholder Reviewers, who will reassess applications based on the appeal. This review will conclude on November 5th at 8pm UTC.
Hey everyone, I noticed that some projects that were denied do not have clarity on why they were removed.
As someone that is also a badgeholder in this round, i know this is a lot to ask, but maybe the projects that were denied should receive at least some kind of clarity, especially because, for an appeal, its necessary to answer “why the project was removed and why it should be reviewed again”.
Drafting comprehensive rejection reviews for each application may pose a significant challenge. However, the high-level rationales provided in this document can serve as a valuable resource for projects when considering appeals.
Hey @JoaoKury, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. We do have the list @Chain_L shared above, which shares at least a high level reason for the report. Unfortunately, not everyone submitted a description for their report (even when we implemented it as a required field, people would just input “.”).
Once we wrap up the appeals, we’re going to be posting a request for feedback on the process and would love to explore how we can improve on the reviews for future rounds.
I Agree here. It took long enough to review them all and I agree with the reports. Most of what I voted to be removed talks about future impact, users thinking their activity in Optimism is enough to participate, and spam.
You are correct, but I do not agree that the project should be removed simply because income was not stated, and it should be stated that the project statistics are false, while PDFs were offered with every order.
I simply and in a hurry missed the information about what needs to be indicated and the income of the project, I thought that only financing was needed, and for such a mistake, the project was eliminated!
I think it’s great. And very intuitive. So my application was rejected and before i’ve submitted it i knew that it was going to be, i think that i’ve made a huge effort to write it, maybe we can think how this work also counts. Haha =), but the Sheet it’s enough to understand why the decision were made and it’s great how they are working. Congratz with this great effort and time to anser.
I see a “Not sure this is in the scope of retropgf” as reason to reject and nothing else, it seems a bit extreme for that to be considered in violation of the Application rules if “not sure”. I also understand that this is what the appeal process is for, so I don’t mind giving more context
I am Ronald, I am the owner of the 5758 MASTER project.
I found out why my application was deleted during the review period because I made a mistake by giving promises to IMPECT.
In fact, I don’t fully know what IMPECT is, so I just fill in what I can. After knowing that it is wrong and now I want to give an IMPECT answer according to my project which is 5758 MASTER.
Impact: providing broader insight to my community 5758 MASTER (Youtube & TELEGRAM) with the aim of providing a discussion that is easier to understand than what has been provided by Optimism or its ecosystem. I will make more detailed videos about existing projects or information that are easier for the community to understand so that it is easier for them to understand the information and updates that exist on Optimism.
5758 MASTER continues to provide educational videos & tutorials about optimism on the YouTube channel and shares via Twitter and Telegram, so that the community continues to get the latest information about optimism.
I am RONALD, the owner of YouTube 5758 MASTER which has 12.6K followers, TELEGRAM 3.1K followers & Twitter 400 followers. I want to make my social media platform a place for the community to find information and tutorials about optimism.
I have also made a special playlist for optimism which contains 8 videos. I often make informational videos and tutorials to interact with projects that are optimistic for my community.
This is my YouTube playlist link https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe2UwSZfX95chj2YxiEFg8FMlH9pevuv6&si=eKgXMWGe1QfUwm9U
TELEGRAM Channel: Telegram: Contact @MASTER5758_LEGENDARY
I did not submit the OP Token value in RetroPGF3, I admitted that I had filled in a request for funds of 25000-50000 but I thought that was a requirement that had to be filled in, so I filled in that value which actually had no intention of asking for that value, that was my second mistake. To be honest, I just want to be part of RetroPGF3, whatever allocation 5758 Master gets is number 2, the main thing is that I want to be part of OPTIMIST and be recognized through RetroPGF3 for providing extensive insight and tutorials to my community and the optimism community.
I hope that RetroPGF3 can be accepted so that I can get enthusiasm because I have become part of optimism.
Telegram DM: @MASTER_5758
Ronald | 5758 MASTERS
apparently no, i got called SPAM… can you believe it? im basically the only quality spanish content creator explaining the technicalities behind the superchain the opstack, all the chains using this, we also covered onboarding people into the ecosistem, delegating, participating in grants, we covered the bedrock update with free tutorials, and i could just keep talking here! the point is that it is kinda rude to call someones effort SPAM when you could just state from the begining that content creators, tutorials or videos to oboard people into the OP ecosystem are not what the foundation wants for this specific PGF
Would you mind providing the name of your project? This information would be beneficial for us to grasp the challenges, which, in turn, will contribute to enhancing the overall process.
I empathize with your frustration and wish to affirm that we, as a collective, are dedicated to streamlining the process and making it more inclusive.
If your project was not included in this current round, please don’t be disappointed, as RPGF is an ongoing process, and you can always submit your proposal in the next round. MIght I suggest, creating a tutorial vedio sharing your experience so far with RPGF: