RetroPGF 3: Badgeholder Manual

The Badgeholder Manual is provided for each RetroPGF Round. It is a collection of content guiding badgeholders through their voting experience. The Badgeholder Manual has evolved round over round, see the Badgeholder Manual for Round 1 & Round 2.

This post is to collect feedback from badgeholders on the RetroPGF 3 Badgeholder Manual.

Content overview

  1. Main page: The main page provides an overview of important information on RetroPGF 3, the main sections include
    1. RetroPGF 3 overview, scope, Round size, timeline, events & spaces
    2. Impact = Profit Framework overview
    3. Voting in RetroPGF 3 overview
    4. Ops & Administration
  2. Impact = Profit Framework: Definition of both impact and profit, how they are defined and applied in practice. The framework has been outlined in a seperate post to receive detailed feedback, you find it here
    • Impact Evaluation Framework: A helpful tool for badgeholders as they are reviewing RetroPGF applications. It outlines audiences, definitions, and metrics on impact within each category of this Round.
      Feedback on the Impact Evaluation Framework is collected in a post here
  3. How to vote: Describes the voting mechanics, provides an overview of Lists, and a guide to the voting apps & tooling that are available.
    • How to create a List: A guide on how to create a List that other badgeholders can leverage in their voting

Request for feedback

Here are specific areas of feedback that will be helpful to refine the Badgeholder Manual:

  1. Does the main page provide a sufficient overview of RetroPGF 3? Is there information that is missing, which should be included?
  2. Are the voting mechanics easily understood? What questions come to mind when reading the main page and “How to vote”?
  3. Is the functionality and goal of Lists easily understood? What questions come to mind when reading the List section in “How to vote” and the guide on “How to create a List”?
  4. Is the Badgeholder Manual easy to navigate?

Please provide feedback by Friday, Nov 3rd, so it can be incorporated before the start of voting on Nov 6th :sparkles:


I read through the badgeholder manual, and what struck me as a bit odd is that a Round 3 Retrospective call is scheduled for December 11, 2023 to talk about lessons learned and possible improvements for future rounds. However, since the results will not be announced until January, many important questions can’t possibly be discussed:

How did the median voting affect outcomes? Did Lists lead to badgeholders allocating their votes among more projects than previous rounds? How did impact evaluation frameworks influence the voting behaviour? …

I would suggest that, similar to RetroPGF 2, the results should be announced first, followed by a public community retrospective. Or alternatively, a second Round 3 Retrospective call should be scheduled that takes place after the results are announced.


Voting mechanics:

You can allocate up to 30m OP among all applications, and you can allocate between 0 and 5m OP to a single application. If you don’t use your full voting power of 30m OP, the unused portion won’t be allocated.

The last sentence is confusing to me. A bit further down it says that results will be normalized to match the round size of 30m OP.

So - If I don’t use my full voting power of 30m OP, then 30m OP will still be distributed, but I will not affect the results as much as I might have. Is that right?

And, theoretically, if all badgeholders decided to only use 2/3 of their voting power, then the allocations would still just be scaled to fit the full round size. Right?

For an application to qualify for payouts, it needs to receive more than 1500 OP.

So… A vote for anything less than 1500 OP is basically no different than a vote for 0 OP (if we disregard the effects of normalizing the results). Is that correct?


Good Point! We changed the Retro to be mid Jan after results have been announced


We removed the sentence, agree it’s confusing.
Both comments are corrected: by using less voting power you exercise less influence over the outcomes of the voting and if badgeholders, in aggregate after applying the median, distributed less than 30m OP the results will be scaled to match the round size. While I think the latter is very unlikely.

Yup that’s true