My biggest takeaway as a badgeholder over two rounds:
There is simply to no way to truly assess 643 projects. I want to dive deep on projects I have some sort of expertise on (governance, DAOs, regen, conferences) and trust others to do the same on stuff I don’t (infra, gaming, media, programming, etc)
I am not technical and have to completely rely on the opinions/lists of others for projects that I know are critical to the ecosystem but I’m unlikely to understand even with concentrated study.
If each badgeholder picks or is assigned 10 projects they’re interested and knowledgable about to dive into and create clear rationale and recommendations, that seems much more efficient that having all of us review all projects, regardless of expertise.
This would help the smaller projects get the deep dive they deserve. If I had a month for ten projects, i could even reach out to the team if needed to better understand what they are doing/have done. As it is, the kind of diligence I’d like to do would make badgeholding a full time job.
Still need to figure how those deep dives would all roll up for scoring/allocating OP by the community of course, but I’m sure we could arrive a clever mechanism for this.
Right now it seems the success of the program hinges on some ultra dedicated folks devoting a huge amount of (volunteer) time to make lists, lead discussions, and try to support sense making for badgeholders. We need to reduce this reliance and try to give each badgeholder a manageble and relevant to their expertise batch of projects to review.