RetroPGF Round 2 Voting Rationale

Hi governance and community members.

Voting ended a few days ago and I don’t want to pass up the opportunity to share here what we did at SEEDLatam, as me as bagdeholder, delegate representative for the community.

As you may know, our delegation is iterative and in different instances, the community has some say over our votes for Optimism governance, and this time was no different. In RPGF 2, we allow the community to help us decide which projects to fund.

The scope

For this round, we focus on funding a high number of projects horizontally, that is, without a particular preference for any topic. Additionally, in addition to the importance of the impact, for this round we focused on projects that could benefit more significantly from funding, compared to those with a token launched or previous private financing; also eliminating potential conflicts of interest.

We conducted our own community RPFG voting: we believe that collective intelligence can be harnessed in a controlled environment and we extended our decision-making power to our community, raising the awareness of Public Goods Funding and incentivizing to the people to participate. In this round, we grant 20% of the voting power to our members previously interested in the Optimism governance to vote on their projects that they consider worthy of financing. Our thesis is that even if the badgeholder reviewed all the projects, each unintentional bias could be relatively reduced by members of the community with different appreciations of the applying projects, where the experience of each one in the Ethereum ecosystem would mark which project has impacted positively.

The process

We launched our snapshot page and opened three polls, one for each category, using the weighted voting system,the same used for RPGF2.

We used the 1 address 1 vote strategy, guaranteeing to be sybil-resistant, in which each address holding at least 1 POAP of our governance calls was enabled to vote. In this way, our experiment prevented any possibility of inappropriate behavior in our results, while handing this decision power to our community members with some context of how Optimism governance works, having been on at least one of our governance calls (and then POAP claimed).

The results were faithfully respected, meaning this time 20% of the badgeholder’s voting power, of which 80% were later selected by this delegation considering variables such as size of impact, need for funding and quality/uniqueness; a plus if it’s dedicated to OP. We had a small particular focus on the collections, since these heterogeneous groups are the type of nominations that most closely match the collaborative spirit for public goods.

The results

24 community members participated among 107 eligible. 87% of community members participated in all polls. Each voter in our community selected between 1 and 12 nominees per category.

A total of 121 projects were voted on. The weighting was enormously distributed among those selected. The projects received between 0.03 and 3.87% of the voting power.

As a consequence, it is to be expected that our decision will not influence the total ranking of the top voted, and it will do so for the projects that will receive fewer votes by the rest of the badgeholders.

Our full results can be found below: Copia de Voting scratchpad Seed latam JOXES - Google Sheets