A few things we observed during the round that may help improve future iterations of RPGF.
0 votes 
may have been ineffective at achieving what a badge holder decides.
Projects that made it past the initial review filter which are unfavorable earn rewards as long as they meet quorum.
We saw this unravel first hand as the badge holders discussed certain projects during round 3. One of which has a track record of history when it comes to bad actors in the Optimism community.
Here are a few suggestions.
- 0 votes could be displayed separately on the UI of the platform for tracking ballots.
Signaling to low quality projects in this manner allows badge holders to see whether others have down voted a project.
Give them clarity during the round on whether they have any negative consequences involved.
A project can then decide during the round on how to pivot in a social environment for their campaign. Reflecting the negative votes to the public allows all parties to understand if a project deserves an allocation of OP.
- If a project receives more than (17) 0 votes they receive zero funding even if the quorum is met. This requires consensus amongst the same amount of badge holders that it also takes to pass the quorum.
Of course if the quorum number changes so does the number of 0 votes used to veto a project from receiving funds from a round.
With both public displays of the 0 votes & a threshold to veto a project from receiving funds less time needs to be spent researching whether or not to add 0 votes at the end of a round.
This also discourages low effort projects from creating noise by advertising and marketing during the round which may take away attention from high quality projects with significant amounts of impact.
Rather than getting 600 plus projects hopes up that they will all receive funding causing a rally on social channels to sway votes their way.
Hopefully 
this is constructive feedback that may help us learn from the mistakes of the past.
Coordination is king! Transparency is key when it comes to determining the allocation of funds but the badge holders casting the votes must remain anonymous to provide safety to those individuals.
Additional Security Council
We also feel as if a small council of 2-3 security badge holders are elected prior to the round who are specifically focused on the DYOR side of things it would improve the efficiency of voting.
This core group of individuals would only be allowed to 0 vote projects that had been determined low effort or which made it past the initial review filter & also through the appeal process. Helping to flag projects early on in the round for other badge holders and checking for accuracy in profiles.