I enjoyed working on the methodology for a list. Not sure if they are going to be public so Iāll leave out the results, but sharing the methodology for discussion:
mel.ethās Applied Governance Efficacy Allocation Framework (Methodology and NOFM Matrix)
About
This list encompasses the application of the following methodology as conceived and applied by mel.eth as could best be derived from the 104 Collective Governance related applications reviewed. The focus is on PEOPLE: those that create governance communities and those that create accretive participation, via same. When unsure, I remained OPTIMISTIC about the prospect of the applicant.
Impact Evaluation
Of the 104 categorical applicants, 3 categories and 7 data points were used to obtain seven (six funded and one unfunded) discrete amounts, one for each applicant.
Categories:
Contributors were assessed along the lines of ONE (creator or company), FEW (team or DAO), MANY (collective or delegation)
Beneficiaries were assessed along the lines of Few (small delegations or DAOs) and Many (other builders and users)
Good Governors were assessed as Yes (likely to vote with or delegate OP tokens) or No (not likely to actively govern with OP tokens or no retro OP/Governance contribution highlighted in application)
Matrix {CONTRIBUTORS}:{Beneficiaries} with values used:
Distribution of Weights
None
One
Few
Many
NONE
0
0
0
0
ONE
0
0
0.075
0.100
FEW
0
0
0.125
0.175
MANY
0
0
0.200
0.325
Total weight check: 1.0
*Good Governor (GG) Multiplier Y/N: [1,0]
Value assigned by characterizing each applicant, thence [{NOFM}:{nofm}]*{GG}. Once obtained, all available OP tokens were allocated among the 91 / 104 applicants that had non-zero allocations.
It has been my pleasure to contribute here; best efforts were made, thank you and good hunting.
mel.eth http://themelv.in
This experience has definitely been different, each perspective is understood, on the one hand the badgeholders and on the other the applicants. In our case, we applied the first filter as a community and did not do much, we took a tour of different cities to educate more people from scratch, however they did not understand everything we did and prioritized projects with only 1 event, or projects that did not indicate their impact, they only placed links from social networks, including other projects that took advantage of our effort to apply and managed to be selected.
Unfortunately there is no way to change things, it is the existing policies that must be changed in the future to continue improving as a collective and not sadden or discourage those builders.
For my part, I give talks at different universities about technology, in communities, and always sharing practical cases of how to use applications built in the Optimism ecosystem. I believe that the best way to learn is with practical cases, especially if we want adoption. For anyone who is just starting out in web3, there are many new terms, in my case I have entered the discord, all the optimism applications to understand it better every day and I combine my passion, which is teaching and sharing with others, with what I have been learning in this ecosystem. My application became one of the selected projects, and although the choice of impact can be subjective, I have placed evidence of the different talks that I have organized to attract more people to the collective and especially to the use of optimism applications, I hope the delegates can visualize it and consider the impact and role that each of us has within the ecosystem (Optimism Agora). Everything adds up and everything helps the positioning of optimism, the developers, the speakers, the creators, I hope that many of the projects that are applying manage to exceed 17 badgeholders, and it is a lesson learned for everyone for a next retropgf.
On the other hand, many thanks to everyone who is contributing to the construction of this vote and to those who are taking the time to read each of the proposals. Letās stay optimistic.
Some delegates do not spend enough time reviewing applications but instead rely in the marketing created by miltimillion dollar companies
This significantly reduces the impact of retro PGF as funding instrument for innovations and start ups like my project Pin Save.
We have received most of the funding from Gitcoin and Filecoin Grants. Meanwhile, RetroPGF is very novel to us, we are hoping to accrue enough votes next round.
Therefore, we would really appreciate more support between retro pgf rounds,
Will projects that do not meet the ballot quorum get some feedback?
Iām just surprised as to why my ballot is still low despite my contents focusing on Optimism and the Superchain.
Just in case I do not get in on this round, I would love to hear some feedback as to why my contribution didnāt make it so I can improve in the next round.
Hereās my application just in case youāre a badge holder thatās interested in this review. Optimism Agora
I love the idea of having only badgeholders vote for eligible projects, as this greatly solves the potential problem of Sybil attacks. However, my suggestion, based on my mistake in this round, would be to increase the criteria to get on a RetroPGF list. Thereafter, all approved projects can be eligible based on the median of voted funds.
Example:
If 10 million OP is allocated for a particular round, 10% (1 million OP) should automatically be distributed among all enlisted projects. The other 90% should then be distributed based on votes by badgeholders
The rationale behind this suggestion is based on my personal experience. It was last night that I found out that we need at least 17 votes for our application to be approved. We have 5 votes so far, and it will be heartbreaking if we donāt meet the quorum. There are also a number of lesser-known projects making meaningful, actionable impacts, like what we are doing at Admiano, that still have few votes. At the same time, there are some projects in this round that shouldnāt have made the cut.
A base (suggested 10%) allocation distributed among all eligible projects while raising the barrier to entry will, in my opinion, make for a more successful RetroPGF.
Iāll appreciate it if badgeholders take a look at a topic I raised earlier about additional information not included in our original proposal. Admiano - Update On Our Impact Statement It would mean the world for us to reach the Quorum
I believe lists should be editable, similar to how ballots are. Lists carry huge influence and can significantly impact application outcomes. Some badgeholders depend solely on lists when creating their ballots. The inability to edit perpetuates the trajectory determined by lists.
Examples:
Experienced firsthand: IDriss is a perfect fit for the very popular Impactful Opensource v2 list, but we didnāt ping @lefterisjp on time to be considered, and now our application canāt be added. Weāre currently struggling to reach the quorum, but I believe weād be well past it if we were on that list.
An application was placed on a list by mistake or got flagged in the meantime, and now it canāt be removed. Iām guessing that Badgeholders will be able to provide an actual example of such a situation.
We are missing these lists which did appear on our profile yesterdayā¦
Women Founders and Leaders [UPDATED]
Community Building Projects
mel.ethās Applied Governance Efficacy Allocation Framework (Methodology and NOFM Matrix)
Fuji AR List Pairwise
We think there was one more but Iām having a hard time finding it. We see weāre on three out of the six that we were in yesterday. Not sure when the retro PGF two distribution list was made, but that oneās showing up on our profile.
Disregard this we have word back and if anyone is wondering, there is still some fixes being done to display the lists that may not be appearing on your profileā¦ Stay optimistic!
Also, if a badge member happens to see this that would like to approve our list for Gitcoin Growers & Buildersā¦
These are folks who we told about optimism, retro PGF a few months ago and have since gotten involvedā¦ They are all passionate about public goods & growth.
It seems like the platforms used for voting and tracking are all being heavily beta tested during this round, and can only imagine how much better future iterations of retro PGF will be after thisā¦
I agree with you. I had a similar experience when I created a list as an applicant to create more awareness. Immediately after creating the list, I discovered I hadnāt added a project yet. Probably in the next round, itāll be it will be very much needed.
QuantumFair, as a new Raffle as Service dApp on Optimism, is heartbreaking seeing little support and the very likely scenario we wonāt reach quorum. Especially since weāve built for OP and Optimism has prided itself in supporting native-built projects at conferences and X spaces.
Perhaps itās because new dApps canāt be showcased against each other so that people can vote on which dApp had the most impact with their short relative time of being alive- kinda like a tournament?
For example, I would have loved for QuantumFair to be measured up against other dApps that are 0-6 months old, since Impact on marketing/bd is relative to how long one has been in the ecosystem, and code impact depends on how extensive your code base is.
Perhaps there should be filters and qualifying rounds according to each subgroup that one applied for? I see some extremely questionable dApps that have gotten plenty of votes with little to no impact on either marketing or code production.
In sum, as a new dApp in the OP ecosystem, (that did little to no networking) we see building on OP for future retroPGF grants as a major questionable issue since this round turned out to be more of āwho you knowā versus āletās see what youāve builtā
Please disclose the voting details(the amount of each ballot) for each project in order to evaluate the difference between the median and the average.
BH name isnāt necessary,but it is better if we can know how BH vote
That was just a guide to show previous history of rpgf2 in a digestible way. The lists are only recommendations that are made for other badge holders to go throughā¦
Over time these lists can become dialed in with revisions on who has returned year to year and how they have used the funds to help them with development. Although there is no rules around how the OP rewarded for RPGF is spent.
We highly suggest that each Grantee joins the GAP (Grantee Accountability Protocol)
This is where you can make further attestation to the work you are doing to make an impact onchain. Go here to report your proof of impact & remember we are already working towards RPGF4 ā¦
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 donāt (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 Iām unlikely to understand even with concentrated study.
If each badgeholder picks or is assigned 10 projects theyāre 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 Iād 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 Iām 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.
Imagine if you didnāt have to put a number behind each project. If you could just signal your preferences with many simple decisions.
You could go to the category you have expertise in,
Two projects come up and you could simply pick the one that is better and do that many times.
You get a ranked list of those projects
You go to another category and repeat
You rank all the categories that you judged against each other.
You are done.
Then the final numbers are determined by an Elo Rating system based on an aggregation of all the data from all the badge holders.
This was the original plan for Pairwise, but we had to retrofit it to work with Lists and that added a lot of complexity, also I wish we could have worked more closely with the RetroPGF crew on categorization, but everything was so rushed.
You can try it out and imagine that flow:
If we went with a system like this, it would be MUCH more scaleable, badge holders could focus on their expertise (I should be judging DAO things, not zk/infra things), and it could even be FUN to submit a ballot!
I hope we can find the support to build it out as an end to end voting system for Optimism or some other use case before the next round so we can show it off and prove the concept.
Hard to think I have anything to add here given the astonishing amount of feedback here. Iām just thinking that Optimism itself is having such a huge impact that Optimism itself should be the biggest recipient of impact grants! Amazing work in building a community that cares.
Random brain dump
There is WAY too much work to be a āgoodā badgeholder. Iāve felt guilty since the start because I donāt have the time to do what I feel like Iām supposed to do. Perhaps there could be an explicit āMinimum Expected Behaviourā checklist. āIf you do X, Y, and Z, youāre an amazing badgeholderā¦if you do more youāre beyond amazing.ā As it is, I suspect most badgeholders feels they didnāt do enough.
Lists are counter productive. I feel that lists almost certainly lead to group think, winner-take-all, and allow badgeholders to be lazy. Plus, itās very unclear how lists work. Are they just a list of things I might be interested in? Is there a button that say, āvote for all items on this list?ā If yes, what happens if I do that for two lists? If no, how are lists useful? People used the amounts on lists in two ways that Iām aware of ā in some cases they assigne the same amount of all items on the list (signaling that the list was informative only) and in some cases the amount differ indicating a value judgement. Confusing to have both types without a disctiction.
Thereās no built in coordination among badgeholders. Each badgeholder is āon their ownā in the sense that I canāt really see what other badgeholders are thinking (other than through reading tons of forum posts or getting spammed by shillers). We should allow the badge holders to coordinate more. Randome sub-groups of badgeholders could be assinged random groups of projects to answer simple questions such as āestimated impact scoreā or āis public good?ā or āis VC funded?ā This information could be collected in a pre-round round and perhaps you could reward through a small stipend badgeholders for doing this process.
Better identification of VC funded projects. Itās my belief that no VC funded project is actually building a public good. Itās just clear common sense and obvious.
Ask for VC funding in the project applicaiton ā if youāre going to ask for grant funding, you must ask for VC funding. Thereās no legitimate argument for not doing that.
Donāt use 30,000,000 OP on the voting forms. Each badge holder is voting 30,000,000 OP and that is being āscaled upā into 30,000,000 ārealā OP tokens is very confusing. Make it so each badgeholder is voting 1,000,000 votes or something. In other words, separate the two concents of votes and OP tokens. Using 30,000,000 for each and calling them the same thing is confusing.
Only do rounds once per year. Make the rounds longer. One thing GitCoin did very wrong (in my opinion) is the quarterly frequency with their rounds. It became a full-time job to keep up with the rounds. This kills small projects who do not have the people to spend the time. It also TOTALLY kills the donors. It causes donor fatigue to always have to ask them for donations. Less rounds is better. Once per year is good. Quarterly suck.
This is just an idea: create some sort of āsanctionedā project showcase put on my devoted people from inside the Optimism community. Once a week, feature two or three projects. Perhaps all year long. Make a podcast. Allow the projects 15 minutes discussion time with meaningful answers. Create content that can be linked to from the application. Select projects to include in the podcast by a rigerous process that ignores all things but open-sourcedness, public-goodness, impactfulness.
