This is a rationale for the delegation of SEED Latam, discussed among @Joxes, @Pumbi, @habacuc.eth and @delphine and we are sharing it below.
We agree with the new approach of conducting specific scope rounds as we consider it to be simpler both for applicants when participating, as well as for badge holders when evaluating. Additionally, having the calendar in advance provides predictability to when builders would be potentially rewarded for their positive impacts on the Collective.
Rewarding builders/projects can have a positive impact in the form of user activity, which translates into increased fee generation and network sustainability. In other words, this not only boosts the utility and activity on the network but also attracts more users and participants, leading to more transactions and higher fee revenues.
We are curious how the Impact Juries and Metrics-based Evaluation experiments unfold in practice. There have been several attempts to measure this so far in an “objective” way, but subjective appraisals and other assessments always remain present in each evaluator’s criteria.
The Citizens’ House has already begun its on-chain operations this year, but for the remainder of the year, it will continue to rely heavily on the opinions and decisions of the Foundation. Granting it more autonomy in decision-making will help it consolidate more quickly, as the current roadmap is perceived as too slow.
There is considerable uncertainty about educational initiatives, events, and consumer-facing tools. While it is clarified that they may be rewarded through Missions, more clarity should be provided for projects that generate impact in these areas.
Finally, regarding the name change, we consider the unilateral decision by the Foundation to remove the phrase “Public Goods” from RPGF to have been a significant mistake from a strategic perspective. We believe it would have been more than necessary to involve the Citizens’ House in analyzing and making that decision, possibly through inclusive voting. Since its inception, the RPGF brand has been a cornerstone of Optimism, setting a milestone in the industry by demonstrating that builders who choose to construct public goods can be sustainable. We understand that Retro Funding is presented as a rebranding rather than a change in the ultimate goal of funding public goods, as this change opens up possibilities for various types of contributions, not necessarily public goods to be retroactively funded. However, it has been evident that the community has not embraced this name change well. This is why we wonder if this modification could have been part of a concave decision, that is, more open and collecting varied opinions from DAO participants to enrich the decision, rather than being a closed process.