Very important topic and really thorough analysis of all the different perspectives.
There is no one right answer to this discussion but I am very aligned with the Foundations perspective on how to better address this in future rounds.
Specifically - projects having to disclose if they’ve received venture funding is a very positive step to better evaluate all relevant datapoints while not creating extra work for judges to have to research if projects have received funding on their own.
I strongly agree with this statement.
What matters more is what teams do with their resources at large - and those which make the most impact for the collective should receive the most in retroactive rewards.
The intention of this statement is extremely accurate though it will likely always come in waves. I believe we should put more time into external outreach to ensure all relevant parties are meeting the submission deadline.
I noticed that many teams were unaware of the RetroPGF submission deadline and therefore missed out on being a part of Round 3.
Futher - I think there is a confusion that teams who receive a grant can also apply for RetroPGF.
Overall - this discussion feels very healthy and maintains the Foundation’s neutrality while providing a clear overview on different perspectives from many different stakeholders.