# RetroPGF 3: Round Design

**URL:** <https://gov.optimism.io/t/retropgf-3-round-design/6802>\
**Category:** Retro  Funding Missions\
**Tags:** round-3\
**Created:** [September 12, 2023, 10:34am UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retropgf-3-round-design/6802 "2023-09-12T10:34:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CryptoReuMD](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/bc41dd/user_avatar/gov.optimism.io/cryptoreumd/32/5669_2.png) [@CryptoReuMD](https://gov.optimism.io/u/CryptoReuMD)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2023, 3:06pm UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retropgf-3-round-design/6802/2 "2023-09-12T15:06:08Z")

</div>

> [@system](#):
>
> _ **How can the Collective gather more high quality data for the evaluation of impact & profit?** _  
> Round 2 suffered from low-quality data, consisting of qualitative descriptions from projects on their impact & profit. The lack of comparable and structured indicators (quantitative and qualitative) made it hard for badgeholders to evaluate impact.

For this question, i think that we can use the [Hypercetz ecosystem](https://hypercerts.org/) to make more traceable publigoodnomics. Since this type of impact sometimes it’s not tangible, we are just looking for waves and not for real life changing events. So maybe for in real life events, helping communities and on boarding new people, it’s better and need to be highly recognized as a titanic effort.

> [@system](#):
>
> _ **How can we scale badgeholders’ impact evaluation to accurately assess the impact & profit of all nominated projects?** _  
> In Round 2, the number of nominated projects was overwhelming for badgeholders, with some spending significant time on evaluating all nominated projects.

For this, we can make a council, because sometime sone badgeholder has some doubt avout the grantees and the public goods that are being founded, i mean i really don’t know about a X project, but maybe someone can do it. this type of “Expertise” it’s something that we have in medicina, like a on-call governance intent.

> [@system](#):
>
> _ **How do we provide better mental models and definitions for impact evaluation?** _  
> Round 2 surfaced ambiguity in both the badgeholder role description, as well as impact definition, leading to badgeholders using vastly different criteria to evaluate a project.

Wow, this is a extremely difficult question, but i think that we can start wtih:  
1.- Is this PG better for me or for the ecosystem?  
2.- Is this project aligned with me or with the ecosystem?  
3.- Is this person aligned with the ethos of the Ether Fenix theory or does the same in other L2?  
4.- Am i aware of reporting my disclosures for this decision making?  
5.- Am i motivated for this decision by the race, country, age or knowledge?  
6.- Do i win something with this decision?  
If we have a Yes, for all this question, we need to abstain, becuase we are biased. Just the third question it’s the only one that it’s different.

> [@system](#):
>
> _ **How can the Collective provide a better voting experience to Badgeholders? How can the Optimism community create tooling that improves the RetroPGF system for all types of participants?** _  
> In Round 2, badgeholders were faced with a far from optimal voting experience, allocating votes via one long form.

It would be great for all of us to see on chain voting and know the reason why they are voting. Because if we are intended to be a full privacy solution, this can make us think that the decisions are for profit or with bias.

It’s just what i think that also we can apply

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retropgf-3-round-design/6802)._