RetroPGF Round 3 Feedback Thread

GM Badge holders!

I have undertaken a thorough review and analysis of the comments provided in both this thread and the RetroPGF 3: Round Design. Through a manual count process, I have identified key observations across five distinct areas, shedding light on the community’s sentiments regarding this round. I have compiled a summary of the mentions each topic has received:

NOTE: It is important to acknowledge that the manual count process may introduce an element of subjectivity, and the results are open to interpretation. However, I believe this analysis serves as a valuable tool to identify potential pain points and areas for improvement during this round.

Below, I present a high-level overview of the comments provided, categorized by the respective areas of concern:

  • Number of Projects
    • Some Badge Holders expressed feeling overwhelmed by the number of projects they were assigned to review, some of them were waiting for final lists of other Badge Holders.
    • There was an observed increase in participation rates among Badge Holders in the final days (noticed in social networks like X in the last days). Projects have to shill their projects and beg for a ballot.
    • Some applicants remarked that smaller projects with potentially impactful outcomes could be overshadowed by larger, better-funded projects.
    • Some members shown misinformation for how the OP Allocation mechanism work in this round (median) if anyone still wonder how, below is a visual explanation provided by @danftz:

  • Lists
    • Participants expressed a desire for lists without OP Allocation values to encourage unbiased evaluations by other Badge Holders.
    • How to assure that a badge holder list is not inaccurate? As an experiment, a lot of these list could not been created with a high quality criteria. Despite this, lists has show to be a good tool for badge holders to scale their allocation process and get aware of projects in another areas of expertise.
  • Voting Experience
    • Some members feel that the current voting outcomes do not accurately reflect the impact of some projects. As mentioned in point 1, lesser-known projects have a disadvantage in front bigger projects.
    • Different members remarked the importance of good tools such as Pairwise or the Impact Evaluation Framework for an effective project evaluation. A better UI/UX could facilitate the overwhelming evaluation process for the Badge Holders.
  • Previous Funding
    • It has been a huge discussion topic about how to evaluate projects that have received previous funding, in a high level way, previous topic could be interpretate in three different ways: Previous Funding by the collective (grants, RetroPGF, Intent Missions, etc), VC Funding and last but not least, grants received by other protocols.
  • Threshold
    • The most discussed centered around defining guidelines beyond the minimum number of ballots required for RetroPGF selection. Proposals included different threshold tiers with capped allocations for each tier.
    • Also, some people noticed that 0 OP allocation should not be count for quorum.

Hope this resume help everyone to have a high level understanding of what happened during this round. I believe all of your insights reflect the collective desire for a fair and efficient RetroPGF process.