RetroPGF 3: Voting badge distribution

The nomination process ended yesterday.

Thank you for nominating me as a badge holder, I will dedicate my time fully to becoming a badge holder, and I am also very enthusiastic about advancing ecosystem optimism and getting this important role.


Well looks like the cat is out of the bag here (We need to talk about undisclosed financial interests - #42 by louis_caganza). But the problem isn’t limited to this forum. Ethereum foundation currently has a few agents of @seedlatam @ETHKipu and the rest of the @CryptoChica cronies. As a result, communities that do not receive the blessing from them are blocked out from funds altogether. Instead what we see is she continuously opens the path for people with no experience or long term results.

Consider this, in Peru we have a few communities that have applied for the Eth foundation grants. Only those tied to @CryptoChica have received support. This is because she already has created a play-for-pay scheme (it can be proven without a doubt, but disclosing it may reveal my identity). In fact given the amount of connections between all the ETH XXX it still surprises me that we allow it to happen.

People really need to ask themselves, where does the money go. And is it worth it? What results are there? And how real are they?

I ask this because there are times I see pictures of a group of friends (basically the same 10 cats) and they call it a community. Bootcamps filled with spectators and nonbuilders who are just there to kill time. I know because I make it my business to know everyone in my ecosystem.

Yet these pictures are marketed as success. In the digital world, marketers can convince people that a cig is the cure the cancer, well the same happens here in the web 3 grant arena.


I am starting to notice that the posts that explain the concerns are now being censored. This is a serious red flag. My comment outlining facts has now been censored. I fear for the Optimism community as it seems that moderators are unbiased to the situation when presented with objective facts and when raising serious concerns.


You’re highlighting some of the negative effects kingmaking can have in ecosystems. This creates inefficiencies, poor performance, complacency, lack of meritocracy, social inequalities, unethical behavior, limited opportunities, and weakening of institutions/ organizations among many other issues. The main issue here is once institutions are locked into this kingmaking, they have to keep funding it until they are proven right instead of considering alternative options, even if it’s in parallel. Being from Latin America, I can say this is something we’ve been conditioned to accept and it’s not different in the Ethereum ecosystem. “Top down” will remain a meme until decision makers are brave enough to make that bet.