RetroPGF Round 3 Feedback Thread

Hello everyone, I’ve been reading some great feedback here and would like to share my perspective as well.

For context, this was my first round as a badgeholder, and it was also the first time a project I’m involved in participated in RPGF. Here are the main points I observed during this experience:

  • Better definition of “impact=profit”

I find this idea incredible, but there’s room for improvement in defining what “impact” truly means. Initially, I focused on allocating OP to projects with an impact on the OP ecosystem, but as the round progressed, I noticed other badgeholders also rewarding impact on the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

While I’m not against this, I believe clearer guidelines for badgeholders could streamline the process. PS: The badgeholder manual was immensely helpful to me in this round!

Towards the end, I saw several projects that seemingly did little for the Collective surpassing the minimum quorum. Many still have a chance to earn more OP because a high score with 17 votes is more plausible than with +40 votes.

  • Better criteria & communication

Communication improvement is essential. Many projects (and badgeholders) discovered the quorum of 17 during the allocation period.

Moreover, the review process in this round didn’t seem communicative enough. Many projects were flagged by the Foundation and/or the Collective without much information. On one hand, this is positive because many applications were processed, but on the other hand, it’s not fair to the projects not to provide a coherent justification for the flag. Another project I’m part of was rejected, and I still don’t exactly understand the reason for it (Optimism Portugues).

I also believe allowing only 2-3 days for projects to appeal through a google form may not be the best option. Why not use the governance forum?

Moreover, I still believe that the quorum of 17 for a project to be “qualified” is not a good idea. In the last 2-3 days, several projects and individuals tried to contact me, essentially begging to add the project to my ballot so they could reach 17. I think this is not positive for the project, badgeholders, or the Collective.

  • Set realistic expectations for badgeholders

The application said that “acting as a voter in RetroPGF 3 requires a minimum time commitment of 5-10 hours.” I know it said “minimum”, but the time was much longer than that.

As mentioned by others, to do minimally acceptable work in this round, many hours of work were necessary, and 643 projects were at stake. There was no way to finish the work in 10 hours, especially if the badgeholder participated in pre-voting meetings.

It would be better to align these expectations before the Round starts for badgeholders to better plan their votes.

Also, the rule “Do not DM badgeholders” should be taken more seriously. As long as we let it continue the rule will continue to be broken. Certainly, part of this arises from the need for smaller projects to promote themselves to reach the minimum quorum of 17. But can’t we create other forms of promotion/contact for these projects? Proof of Integrity conducted more than 7 initiatives for projects to present themselves; Why not do this on a larger scale?

Another important point is that it is almost impossible to analyze all projects. We need to be more focused and assign people who know about the subject to evaluate it. For example, it’s not useful for someone who doesn’t know about development to evaluate development projects. Maybe we can think of ways to separate and specialize badgeholders more broadly, such as development, education, etc.

  • Applications

I know others have already said this, but I would also like to see more info on applications. VCs are one of the things. Additionally, I would like that the unjustified absence of certain relevant information (such as VC investments) to be a criteria for disqualification of the project.

Not everyone will want to be transparent, but this needs to be penalized.

In the next round, perhaps there could be some form of reporting throughout the round, as well as a way for badgeholders to be aware of the report (much information was placed in the badgeholders group, but it easily gets lost there).

Also, as some others have suggested here in the forum, for the next round, it might be interesting to think about a token lock mechanism for the application of a project/individual.

  • Rounds separated by category

It was quite challenging in this round, at least personally, to put projects with million-dollar investments on an equal level with projects without any funds. Individual applications were even more difficult.

The expected impact is totally different for an infrastructure project, and analyzing all at once certainly hinders the assessment of allocations.

That’s it folks! Always remembering that RPGF is an experiment, everything I say is aimed at making things even better for the next round.

Thank you to all the fellow badgeholders who voted for their effort and dedication, and to everyone at the Foundation who conducted this round, it was an incredible experience.